Durham E-Theses
Serial struggles : English Catholics and their periodicals,1648-1844
Richardson, Paul Alexander
How to cite: Richardson, Paul Alexander (2003) Serial struggles : English Catholics and their periodicals,1648-1844, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1082/
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
• a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses
• the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.
Academic Support O ce, Durham University, University O ce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Serial Struggles: English Catholics and Their Periodicals, 1648-1844
Paul Alexander Richardson
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
University of Durham
Department of Theology
2003
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should bepub1ished without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged.
-1OCT 2003 Paul Alexander Richardson
Serial Struggles: English Catholics and Their Periodicals, 1648-1844
Doctor of Philosophy
2003
Abstract
From the mid-seventeenth century to the mid-nineteenth century, the English Catholic
community showed its robustness, resilience and complexity through its own periodical press.
The subject, however, has been relatively neglected, specialist research amounts only to a bare
handful of studies, and a full and definitive study which exploits the wealth of available
materials has not yet been written. This thesis is therefore intended to present what has long
been overdue, the first full chronological account of the foundation and development of the
English Catholic periodical press from the Mercurius Catholicus to the Dublin Review.
The work also serves specifically as a balance to Susan J. Acheson who argued in 1981, in her
Oxford M.Litt. thesis on Victorian Catholic journalism, that the Emancipation Act of 1829
was the single most important influence on the Catholic periodical press in England. Against
Acheson, my study shows that the Catholic periodical , press did not owe its life to one major
event early in the nineteenth century, but was rather the result of the religio-political activity
which accompanied a long and difficult struggle for relief measures begun nearly two hundred years before.
In describing the attempts by Catholics, often in difficult conditions and hostile circumstances, to develop a regular literary means of representing , and defending themselves, my thesis does
not avoid the fact that the periodicals were often sustained and made exciting by internecine
quarrels and struggles. Indeed, it concentrates on the tension between two groups of Catholics,
about whether to stress division from or similarity with a Protestant state and society, which
marked the early history of the English Catholic periodical press, and concludes that the final
victory belonged to the party which emphasised distinctiveness over eirenicism. In loving memory of my grandparents
John Mitchell Richardson (1919-1996)
Mary Ellen Richardson (1923-1984)
George Cecil Spoors (1907-1985)
Isabella Spoors (1909-1962) Contents
Declaration and Statement of Copyright 1
Abbreviations 2
Preface 4
I. Origins (1648-1689) 10
I!. Revival (1689-1813) 49
III. Emancipation (18 13-1830) 90
IV. Priesthood (1830-1836) 148
V. Settlement (1836-1843) 201
Finale (1844) 245
Appendix: A Catalogue of English Catholic Periodicals, 1648-1844 255
Bibliography 283 Declaration and Statement of Copyright
This thesis conforms with the prescribed word length for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
for which it has been submitted for examination.
No part of this work has been presented before for a degree offered by Durham University or
by any other establishment.
Material from the work of other scholars has been acknowledged and quotations clearly
indicated.
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged.
Paul Alexander Richardson
August 2003 Abbreviations
AAW Archives of the Archdiocese of Westminster
ABSI Archivum Britannicum Societatis lesu [Jesuit Archives, London]
BAA Birmingham Archdiocesan Archives
BL British Libraiy
BP Bramston Papers
CA Cal ho/ic Advocate
CBL Charles Butler Letterbook
CGM Catholic Gentleman's Magazine
Cf Catholic Journal
CM Catholic Miscellany
CMR Catholic Magazine and Review [1831-1835] cP Coghlan Papers
CS Catholic Spectator
CSM Council of State Minutes
CSP Dom Calendar of State Papers Domestic
CUL Cambridge University Library
DAEA Diocesan Archives of East Anglia
DNB (eds.) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, Dictionary of National Biography 22 vols (London, 1885- 1901)
DP Douglass Papers
DR Dublin Review
DRP Dublin Review Papers
Fitzgerald-Lombard Charles Fitzgerald-Lombard, English and Welsh Priests 1801-1914 (Bath, 1993)
Gil/ow Joseph Gillow, A Literary and Biographical History, or Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics: From the Breach with Rome, in 1534, to the Present Time 5 vols (London, 1885-1903)
GM Gentleman 's Magazine
2 HMC Historical Manuscripts Commission hA Irish Jesuit Archives
LDA Leeds Diocesan Archives
LDOJ London and Dublin Orthodox Journal of Useful Knowledge
LP Lingard Papers
LPTDI The Loyal Protestant and True Domestick Intelligence
LRO Lancashire Record Office
ML Mimer Letters
N DA Northampton Diocesan Archives
OJ Orthodox Journal
PCR Privy Council Records
PP Poynter Papers
PRO Public Record Office
RH Recusani History
SECP St Edmund's College Papers sP State Papers
TDJ The Domestick Intelligence and The True Domestick Intelligence
TP Tierney Papers
UCA Ushaw College Archives wP Wiseman Papers
3 Preface
From the mid-seventeenth century to the mid-nineteenth century, the English Catholic community showed its robustness, resilience and complexity through its own periodical press.
However, a full and definitive account of the subject, which exploits the wealth of available unpublished and primary materials, has surprisingly not yet been written. As early as 1882, the celebrated Jesuit scholar, Herbert Thurston,' identified the need for a work like this and issued an indirect challenge for someone to write a general history of the early Catholic periodical press in England.2 Thurston was clearly not satisfied with the thumbnail sketches which another priest, Frederick Charles Husenbeth, 3 had published in 1867 of the kind of publications that this thesis is concerned with, the various annual almanacs, quarterly reviews, monthly magazines and weekly newspapers which Catholics had compiled, edited and published to communicate news and information to their co-religionists, and to prc*note
Catholicism to a Protestant audience.4 Nor was Thurston apparently taken with the bare outline, from 1881, of early nineteenth-century Catholic journalism by the renowned bibliographer, Joseph Gillow, who foresaw a time when the 'historian of Catholicity in this country, during the first half of this century, will undoubtedly have to refer to the current literature of the period'. 5 Like 1-lusenbeth, Gillow made his list of Catholic periodicals for a very good reason, as he explained:
I have long deplored the negligence and carelessness shown by those who have the charge of our large libraries in collecting the periodical publications of the Catholic press. It does not seem surprising to me that there should not exist in the British Museum Library a perfect set of the magazines issued by the Catholic body previous to the passing of the Emancipation Act, when I have reason to believe that there is not such a collection in any of the libraries of our great colleges. A little publicity on this point may perhaps do
For whom, see Joseph Crehan, Father Thurston (London, 1952).
2 Herbert Thurston, An Old-Established Periodical', Month, XLIV, February 1882, p. 157.
Born in 1796, Husenbeth trained for the priesthood at Oscott College and was ordained in 1820. Soon after, he was appointed as missioner at Cossey in Norfolk and remained there until his death in 1872. See Gil/ow, III, pp. 492-507.
Frederick Charles 1-lusenbeth, 'Catholic Periodicals', Notes and Queries, 3d Series, XI, 5 January 1867, pp. 2-4; 12 January 1867, pp. 29-3 1.
Joseph Gillow, 'Early Catholic Periodicals', Tablet, LVII, 29 January 1881, pp. 181-182; 5 February 1881, p. 220; 12 February 1881, pp. 259-260; 19 February 1881, p. 301; 26 February 1881, pp. 341- 342. Quotation from p. 342.
4 much good, and in some measure prevent, by calling attention to the want in time, what would otherwise speedily prove an irreparable loss.'
This same motive of recording just the most essential information about the works that could
be traced before they were lost forever prompted John R. Fletcher's 1936 article on the
English Catholic periodical press.2 But this again did not answer Thurston's call for a major
study, as Fletcher had simply conflated Husenbeth and Gillow's two lists, and he had done this
without correcting their mistakes or adding flesh to the basic bibliographical details.
Two other twentieth-century studies have also fallen short of what Thurston wanted. In a
chapter of his book on the general reiigious press in Britain, Josef L. Altholz gives an
overview of Catholic periodicals published after 1760 which unfortunately ignores entirely the
seventeenth-century origins of Catholic journalism. 3 The fullest general account of early
Catholic periodical literature that we have is Susan J. Acheson's thesis, 4 a thematic rather than
chronological examination of the subject, which cannot, however, claim to be definitive
because it pays scanty attention to the earliest periodicals. Acheson only gives thirteen of her
two hundred pages to describe what happened before I 830 because, apart from her failure to
identify the existence of a surfeit of primary resources relating to the earlier period, she is
mainly concerned with works published after the Emancipation Act of 1829, arguing that this was the single most important influence on the Catholic press.
Despite the shortcomings and oversights of her thesis, I am grateful to Acheson for introducing
me to the subject of the English Catholic periodical press. Ten years ago, while I was serving
my apprenticeship as a researcher in the English Faculty at Oxford, Acheson's work helped me
to prepare a brief paper on the first fourteen years of one Catholic magazine, the Month, from
its foundation in July 1864. My interest in the Month was fuelled by a need to understand why
its first Jesuit editor, Henry James Coleridge, had rejected two poems, 'The Wreck of the
Gillow, 'Early Catholic Periodicals', p. 181.
2 John R. Fletcher, 'Early Catholic Periodicals in England', DR, CXCVIII, April 1936, pp.284-310.
Josef L. Altholz, The Religious Press in Britain, 1760-1900 (New York, 1989), Chapter Eleven.
" Susan J. Acheson, 'Catholic Journalism in Victorian Catholic Society 1830-1870 With Special •Reference to the Tablet', M.Litt. Thesis (University of Oxford, 1981).
Ibid., pp. 77-89.
5 Deutschland' (1876) and 'The Loss of the Eurydice' (1878), which had been offered for publication by Gerard Manley Hopkins, whose life and poetry I was studying. In August 1996,
I succeeded where Hopkins had failed and my essay was published in the Month.' The opening sentence of the article shows, in its suppbrt of the argument that before the so-called 'Second
Spring' in the I 830s and 1840s2 there was little to write about the English Catholic periodical press, the strength of Acheson's influence on me. Indeed, it was not until late in 1998, while doing the spadework for this thesis, which I had originally planned as an account of the first series of the Dublin Review between 1836 and 1863, that I looked in greater detail at the origins of Catholic journalism and realised, contrary to Acheson, that there was much of interest and importance left untold.
I have consequently written a thesis which tries to present what has long been overdue: the first full chronological account of the birth and growth of the early Catholic periodical press in
England. The work looks at the most important and well-known publications, and follows the story through six chapters from the end of the English Civil War to the year 1844 when, in the middle of the Catholic Revival, it could safely be said that a Catholic periodical press was permanently established in England. My thesis is specifically intended as a balance to
Acheson, showing that English Catholic journalism did not owe its life to one major event early in the nineteenth century, but was rather the result of the religio-political activity which accompanied a long and complex struggle for relief begun nearly two hundred years before. It describes the attempts by Catholics, often in difficult conditions and hostile circumstances, to develop a regular literary means of representing and defending themselves. However, it does not avoid the fact that the periodicals were often sustained and made exciting by quarrels among Catholics, caused mainly by a disagreement over whether to use the press to attain assimilation with or stress separation from Protestant society, and the thesis therefore highlights what Thurston wanted recorded, 'the heart-burnings, the bickerings, the imputations of selfishness, the many differences of well-meaning but narrow-minded men'.3
'A Monthly Magazine for the Educated', Month, CCLVII, August 1996, pp. 297-301.
2 See below, p. 49.
Thurston, 'An Old-Established Periodical', p. 157.
6 The English Catholic periodical press would not have existed without the individual enterprise, and at times sheer bravery, of a number of people. In recognition of the vital role played by those who contributed to the early history of Catholic journalism, I have inserted biographical details in the footnotes and the main text about most of those mentioned. I have also tried to keep the flavour of their writings and reports: in quoting from manuscript documents and printed works, I have preserved the spelling, punctuation and capitalisation, however eccentric and unusual, of the original text. My only compromise has been to expand a few contractions and make some rare corrections, but I have only interfered in this way when it has been absolutely necessary and my handiwork is easily identified by the use of square brackets. The only other point to note about the text is that the dates are New Style and the calendar year is always taken to begin on I January.
Thurston felt that the controversial character of the English Catholic periodical press would make the task of researching it 'unpleasant'. He could not have been further from the truth. In the four years spent on this project, I have been met only with kindness and a willingness to help from all those whom I have contacted. I have been particularly fortunate to use the holdings of libraries and archives where the members of staff willingly did all that they could for me. My thanks go to Dr Nicholas Bennett, Lincoln Cathedral Library; Dr Judith Champ,
Oscott College; Mrs Dora Cowton, Diocesan Archives of East Anglia; Reverend Ian Dickie,
Archdiocesan Archives of Westminster; Mr Robert Finnigan, Leeds Diocesan Archives; Dr
Christine Johnson, Scottish Catholic Archives, Edinburgh; Dr Alistair MacGregor and Mr Pat
Welsh, Ushaw College, Durham; Reverend Dr Thomas M. McCoog S.J., Jesuit Archives,
London; Mrs Margaret Osborne, Northampton Diocesan Archives; Ms Sylvia Pybus, Sheffield
Central Library; Reverend Dr John Sharp, Birmingham Archdiocesan Archives; Ms Orna
Somerville, Irish Jesuit Archives, Dublin; Reverend Canon David Weston, Carlisle Cathedral
Library; and Dr Richard Williams, Mapledurham I-louse, Reading. I also want to acknowledge the assistance given to me at Birmingham Central Library; the Bodleian Library and Duke
Humphrey's Library, Oxford; the British Library, London; Cambridge University Library; the
Central Library, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Dr Williams' Library, London; Durham Cathedral
Library; the libraries of Durham University; Heythrop College, London; the National Library
7 of Ireland, Dublin; the Newspaper Librasy, Colindale; the Public Record Office, Kew; and the
Robinson Libraiy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
I am grateful to the staff and students of Allen Hall, London, of Blackfriars, Cambridge, and of
(]reyfriars, Oxford who kindly gave me accommodation and made it possible for me to visit many of the listed archives and libraries. The study visits would not have been possible, however, without financial support: I am indebted to the Arts and Humanities Research Board of the British Academy which gave me a studentship to work at Durham, to Dr Leo Gooch and the other trustees of the Catholic Record Society for providing me with a generous grant from the David Rogers Fund, and to the Department of Theology at Durham which awarded me Van
Mildert and Lightfoot Scholarships.
I must acknowledge the guidance and information given by the following: Dr Paul Arblaster;
Mr T.J. Bagshawe; Mr L.E. Bagshawe; Mr Brian Carter; Mr Martin Murphy; Mrs Margaret
Parkinson; Reverend Dr Peter Phillips; and Reverend Dr Geoffrey Scott O.S.B. Thanks are also owed to my parents, Mr and Mrs Alex Richardson; to Monsignor Jim Overton, former
Rector of Allen Hall; Mr and Mrs Michael Dick; Mrs Ethel Hogg; Mr Norman Richardson; Dr
David Milstead; and the management of George Rye and Sons, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: their encouragement and support eased the burden of researching and writing this thesis.
My wonderful supervisor, Dr Sheridan Gilley, deserves special praise for showing great patience in helping me to produce a piece of work which undoubtedly would have been poorer without his input.
During the last few years, however, no-one has helped me more than my two closest and dearest friends, my wife Louise and daughter Sophie, without whose support I could not have completed my thesis, and this work is therefore dedicated to them as a small token of my deep and sincere love and appreciation.
8 All that remains to be said by way of introduction is that those who helped me to complete this essay are not responsible in any way for its faults or failings: 'My errors, if any, are my own. I have no man's proxy'.'
'See below, p. 236. Chapter One
Origins (1648-1689)
During the reign of Elizabeth I, the Queen and her government issued a raft of proclamations
and passed a series of laws to prevent seditious Catholic literature from being printed,
published and distributed as part of a concerted effort to suppress Catholicism in England.'
The severest measures were introduced after February 1570 when Pius V published his bull
Regnans in Excelsis, excommunicating Elizabeth and absolving her subjects from any allegiance to her or her laws. This formal break between Rome and England put those English
Catholics who remained in the country in a dilemma, tearing them between their two loyalties to the Queen and the Pope, and meant that, unless they renounced their Catholicism, they either had to reject Protestantism while remaining obedient to a Protestant government or oppose and undermine both. Pius V's declaration against Elizabeth, which was seen as a
licence for her deposition or assassination, also confirmed for the authorities that Ctholics,
spiritual subjects of Rome and political allies of Spain, were the enemy within who needed to be silenced, and the easiest and main way of doing this was to restrict their access to the press.
The prohibited trade of producing, importing or circulating Catholic recusant publications consequently carried severe risks for those individuals connected with it, as for a seminary priest named Thomas Alfield. 1-fe was arrested in March 1585 on a charge of bringing a 'certen slaunderous and lewed booke against her Maiestie and the Realme' into the country. 2 This tract, written at Rheims in 1584 by the exiled leader of the English Catholic community,
William Allen, who had founded the English College at Douay in 1568, was a True sincere and modest defence of English Catholiques which attacked the authorities for persecuting
Catholics and justified military action to depose a heretical ruler. At his trial on 5 July, Alfield admitted to having imported several hundred copies of this work surreptitiously, but
For discussion of press censorship during the Elizabethan age, see H.S. Bennett. English Books and Readers 1558 to 1603: Being A Study In The History of The Book Trade In The Reign of Elizabeth I (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 56-86; Leona Rostenberg, The Minority Press and the English Crown: A Study in Repression 1558-1625 (Nieuwkoop, 191); Cyndia Susan Clegg, Press Censorship in England (Cambridge, 1997).
2 (ed.) John Hungerford Pollen, Unpublished Documents Relating to the English Martyrs (London, 1908), p. 118.
10 maintained that, because Allen had not urged Catholics to betray England, it was a 'good booke and lawfull'. 1 However, the jury rejected this defence: Alfield was found guilty of a felony and hanged the next day at Tyburn with his accomplice, a dyer from Gloucester named
Thomas Webley.2
Three years before, in April 1582, Alfield had been arrested on suspicion of having distributed another seditious pamphlet, this time concerning the martyred Jesuit priest, Edmund
Campion.3 As A.C. Southern convincingly argued, referring to original documentation, Alfield himself wrote this anonymous tract, having attended Campion's execution, but the government overlooked this fact and, after examining and torturing the priest, freed him in September on condition that he attend the service of the Established Church.4 The authorities instead ascribed the authorship to Stephen Vallenger, a Catholic poet and former fellow of Caius
College, Cambridge, who had been found in possession of a manuscript copy of the work.
Despite pleading innocence, he was found guilty on 16 May and sentenced to suffer
punishment in the pillory, the loss of both ears and life imprisonment.5
The printer of the Campion book was Richard Rowlands. 6 Born in London about 1550 and brought up as a Catholic, Rowlands went up to Oxford, entering Christ Church in 1564, but left the University late in 1569 or early in 1570 without taking his degree after being 'pressed
(ed) Pollen, Unpublished Documents Relating to the English Martyrs, p. 119.
2 The Life and end of Thomas Awfeeld a Seminary Preest and Thomas Webley a Dyers Servant in London, beeing both Traitours who were Condemned as Felons for bringing seditious books into this Realnie and Dispersing of the same, among their favourers, for which they were Executed at Tibourne the 6. Day of this Monthe ofJuly 1585 (London, 1585).
A true report of the death and martyrdome of M Campion Jesuite and preiste, & M Sherwin, & M Bryan preistes, at Tiborne the first of December 1581. Observid and written by a Cae'holike preist, winch was present therat Wherunto is annexid certayne verses made by sundrie persons (London, 1582)
A C. Southern, Elizabethan Recusant Prose 1559-/582 A Historical and Critical Account of the Books of the Catholic Refugees Printed and Published Abroad and at Secret Presses in England Together With an Annotated Bibliography of the Same (London, 1950), pp 279-280, pp. 356-359 and pp. 376-379.
Catholic Record Society. ivIiscellanea IV(London, 1907), p. 39; AG. Petti, 'Stephen Vallenger (1541- 1591)', RH, VI, 1961-1962, pp. 251-256
6 For Rowlands, see Charles Dodd, The Church History of England, From the Year 1500, to the Year 16883 vols (Brussels, 1737-1742), II, pp. 428-429, (ed) Anthony G Petti, The Letters and Despatches of Richard Verstegan (c 1550-1640) (London, 1959); A F. Allison, 'A Group of Political Tracts, 1621- 1623, By Richard Verstegan', RH, XVIII, October 1986, pp 128-142.
11 with certain oaths, which were not agreeable to him, upon account of his religion'.' After
leaving Oxford, Rowlands was apprenticed to a master goldsmith in London and was made a freeman of the Goldsmiths' Company in 1574. In 1578, he set up an illegal printing press and defied the strict Elizabethan censorship laws by engaging in the clandestine production of
Catholic books. Rowlands had received a timely warning just before his press at Smithfield was discovered in April 1582 and he somehow escaped to France. Five years later, and now known under the name of Verstegan, he moved from Paris to Antwerp, a main port for the distribution of Catholic books, where he supervised the distribution of Catholic propaganda from the continent to England and worked tirelessly as an intelligencer for the English Jesuits.
Between 1623 and 1629, Verstegan regularly contributed items of news about the English
Catholic community to a Flemish paper named Nieuwe Tdinghen which, as Paul Arblaster has suggested, he might also have edited. 2 Paradoxically, therefore, Verstegan has a strong claim to be the first English Catholic journalist some twenty years before a Catholic newsletter was established in England and, as Alison Shell writes, he is an 'unignorable figure in the prehistory of the English newspaper'.3
Since the time that Frederick Charles Husenbeth wrote the first short essays on the subject, it has been accepted that the English Catholic periodical press began soon after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 with the Calendarium Catholicum, an annual almanac designed
essentially to disseminate information about feasts, fasts and days of abstinence. However,
Catholic journalism originated in England more than a decade before, at a time when press
censorship had collapsed with the defeat of the Royalist cause at the end of the Civil War. The
Mercurius Catholicus, a short-lived newsletter initially made up of twelve quarto pages, was
first printed in London in September 1 648. The frontispiece of its opening number boasted, in
'Dodd, Church History of England, II, p. 428.
2 Paul Arbiaster, 'Current-Affairs Publishing in the Habsburg Netherlands 1620-1660 in Comparative European Perspective', D.Phil. Thesis (University of Oxford, 1999). p. 53. I am grateful to Dr Arblaster for bringing his research to my attention.
Alison Shell, Catholicism, Controversy and the English Literary Imagination, 1558-1660 (Cambridge, 1999), p. 15.
"J.B. Williams, A History of English Journalism to the Foundation of the Gazette (London, 1908), pp. 105-106; Joseph Frank, The Beginnings of the English Newspaper 1620-1660 (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), p. 165; Thomas I-I. Clancy, English Catholic Books 164 1-1 700: A Bibliography: Revised Edition
12 addition to a plain woodcut design of a crucifix encircled by thirty-four beads, a statement that the paper would preach to 'simple and unlearned' Protestants that only Catholicism could save them. This the author of the Mercurius Catholicus argued with copious reference to ancient and modern authorities that 'true Christianity must be Catholique'.' Only the infallible Church of Rome, he wrote, could trace its origins continuously back to the age of Christ and only
Catholicism offered a unified system of traditions, practices and beliefs.
This strident promotion of the Catholic Church as the 'true Church of Christ' was continued in the next number of the Mercurius Catholicus, written in December 1648. But this second and final issue, containing eight pages, moved the argument in a more political direction by demanding that Catholics be granted full toleration. The ending of the first Civil War with the surrender of Charles I in April 1646, followed by the dismantling of the Church of England, had allowed radical ideas about religiousdemocracy to flourish. 2 However, as the author of the
Mercurius Catholicus pointed out, the new liberal spirit had not been extended to Catholics who remained 'vilified, and persecuted, imprisoned and esteemed unworthy of life, by
Protestants for their faith, and Religion'.3 This was ridiculous, he said, as the main reason for persecuting Catholics, their refusal to conform to the Established Church of England, had been removed by Parliament. Because the cause of suffering had been erased so should the effect be
'taken away', and Catholics be freed from the penal and fining laws.4
The radical demands in the Mercurius Catholicus were not without precedent. In the summer of 1647, the English Catholic aristocracy and gentry, led by Lords Brudenell, Teynham, Petre,
Powis and the Marquis of Winchester, and supported by the Benedictines and Jesuits, had secretly negotiated some form of toleration with the military. 5 The discussions were productive and led to a resolution that anti-Catholic legislation would be repealed in accordance with
(London, 1996), p. 110.
Mercurius Caiholicus, September 1648, p. 4.
2 Barry Coward, The SuariAge: England, /603-1714 (London, 1994), p. 185.
Mercurius ('atholicus, December 1648, p. 7.
Ibid.. p. 8.
Thomas H. Clancy, 'The Jesuits and the Independents: 1647', Archivum Historicum Societatis lesu,
13 certain provisos: Catholics would be disallowed from open worship, bearing arms and holding public office; they would also remain under threat of execution for discussing English affairs of state with any foreign power or for pronouncing that the Pope had authority to issue binding political directives.' These conditions were accepted by the Catholic party and, late in
September, it gave Oliver Cromwell a document designed to show that Catholicism was not inconsistent with the civil government of England by denying all of the following propositions:
1. That the Pope, or Church hath power to absolve any person, or persons whatsoever from his or their Obedience to the civill government established in this Nation. 2. That it is lawfull by the Pope's or Church's command or dispensation, to kill, destroy, or other wise injure any person or persons, under his Majesty's dominions, because he or they are accused, or condemned, censured, or excommunicated for any errour schisme or heresy. 3. That it is lawfull in it self, or by the Popes dispensation to break ether word, or oath with any persons abovesayd, under pretence of their being hereticks.2
This paper received Cromwell's personal assurance that the issues it raised would be debated by Parliament. However, before the question of Catholic toleration could progress any further,
Charles I escaped from captivity on 11 November and the country was plunged into a.second
Civil War for another year.
The element common to the original movement for the liberation of Catholics and the publication of the Mercurius Catholicus was Humphrey Peyto, an entrepreneurial Benedictine monk.3 Originally from Warwickshire, Peyto was professed around 1607 at the monastery of
St Facundus in Spain. He returned to England soon after to work on the mission. Peyto's activities as a 'Seminarie Priste' 4 led to his arrest in February 1613 and he remained in custody
XL, January-June 1971, pp. 67-89.
Robert Pugh, Blacklo 's Cabal Discovered in several! of their Letters Clearly expressing Designs Inhumane against Regulars, Unjust against the Laity, Scismatical against the Pope, Cruel against Orthodox Clergy men And owning the Nullity of the Chapter, their opposition of Episcopal! Authority (London, 1680), pp. 50-5 1.
2 Ibid., pp. 59-60.
For Peyto, see Gillow, V, p. 300; T.B. Snow, Obit Book of the English Benedictines From 1600 to 1912 (Edinburgh, 1913), P. 25; (eds.) Dom Justin McCann and Dom Hugh Connolly, Memorials of Father Augustine Baker and Other Documents Relating to the English Benedictines (London, 1933), pp. 208-209; David Lunn, The English Benedictines 1540-1 688: From Reformation to Revolution (London, 1980), p. 150; Athanasius Allanson, Biography of the English Benedictines (Ampleforth, 1999), p. 223.
"(ed.) Dom 1-lugh Bowler, London Sessions Records 1605-1685 (London, 1934), p. 87.
14 for two years until he escaped from Wisbech Castle in April 1615.' Peyto then adopted several
pseudonyms, including that of Thomas Budd, and while remaining a monk disobeyed his
Benedictine superiors by establishing for himself a second more lucrative career as a money
lender.2 Peyto remained free for thirty-two years until he was arrested and convicted of high
treason in December 1647, but he received an unexpected reprieve the following month and
was released. According to William Prynne, the anti-Catholic controversialist and politician,
Peyto had been spared imprisonment by the intervention of senior army officials with whom he
had colluded during the discussions for Catholic toleration which had taken place the summer
before.3
Peyto remained out of trouble throughout 1648 and, at some point before September, he decided to renew the debate on the status of English Catholics by writing the Mercurius
Catholicus.4 Only two numbers of this work appeared because, early in 1649, Peyto fell victim to the new parliamentary measures of press censorship enacted soon after the execution of
Charles I in January 1 649. Arrested for publishing an unlicensed tract, Peyto was remanded to
Newgate gaol and there he languished until a petition for clemency was submitted on his behalf in February 1653.6 The petitioner, a widow named Elizabeth Atkin, had worked in
London under the moniker of Parliament Joan as a government informant against distributors of illegal journals.7 Atkin had probably been involved in airesting Peyto, but she pleaded for his release on learning that he was in poor health. This persuaded the Council of State to free
Peyto at once with the strict instruction that he leave England within three months for a life of
'Mark Aloysius Tierney, Dodd's Church History ofEngland5 vols (London, 1839-1843), V, pp. clxxv- clxxvi.
2 (eds.) McCann and Connolly, Memorials of Father Augustine Baker, p. 208; Lunn, English Benedictines, p. 150.
The Substance of a Speech Made in the House of Commons By Wil. Prynn of Lincolns-Inn, Esquire; On Munday the Fourth of December, 1648 (London, 1649), p. III B. ' Williams, History of English Journalism, p. 106.
Frederick Seaton Siebert, Freedom of the Press in England 1476-1776: The Rise and Decline of Government Control (Urbana, 1965), p. 216.
6 PRO. SP. CSM, 25/63/21, 27 August 1649; 25/32/84, 15 September 1652; 25/39/10, 4 February 1653; (ed.) Bowler, London Sessions Records, pp. 106-108 and pp. 110-I 12.
Williams, bc. cit; Siebert, op. cit., p. 224.
15 permanent exile, 'provided hee give in good securitie not to act anie thing during his libertie to ye prejudice of ye Comonwealth, and that hee will not act ye Priestly Office')
Frederick Seaton Siebert thought that the first year of Peyto's final imprisonment had been marked by the start of the 'most stringent regulation of freedom of discussion of the Puritan
Revolution'.2 The strongest censorship measure taken in 1649 was an act against 'unlicensed and scandalous books and pamphlets'. Implemented on 20 September for an initial term of two years, it revived a licensing system that was based on two decrees issued by the Star Chamber
in 1586 and 1637. These had restricted the general printing trade to London, Oxford and
Cambridge, placed restrictions on the numbers of printers and apprentices, and entrusted to the master and wardens of the Stationers' Company, a body which had received its charter from
Queen Mary in 1557, absolute responsibility for discovering illegal presses and texts. 3 High on the list of those publications which the government considered pernicious were works that promoted the Roman Catholic faith. When warrants were issued against twelve Jesuit priests in
July 1651 it was considered vital that all 'superstitious' titles discovered in the process of arresting those named be seized. 4 One month later, in a separate case, an anonymous publisher and seller of 'Popish books' came before the Council of State to be 'proceeded against according to law'. 5 While the outcome of this trial is not known, the accused was probably fined the maximum £7 for producing and selling outlawed titles.
The end of the Printing Act on 20 September 1651 had a temporary positive effect on the
English Catholic press. Whereas in the three years before an average of only fourteen new
Catholic titles had appeared annually, in the succeeding twelve months thirty such works were published for the first time. 6 This sharp increase in output was noticed by a clique of London
'PRO, SP, CSM, 25/39/10,4 February 1653.
2 Siebert, Freedom of the Press, p. 217. ' CSP Dom 1649-1650, pp. 385-386; (eds.) C.H. Firth and R.S. Rait, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum 1642-16603 vols (London, 1911), II. pp. 245-254; Siebert, op. cit., pp. 222-223.
CSP Dom /65/, p. 286.
Ibid., p. 388.
6 Clancy, English Catholic Books 1641-1700, p. 197.
16 Presbyterian stationers, Luke Fawne, Samuel Gellibrand, Joshua Kirton, John Rothwell,
Thomas Underhill and Nathaniel Webb. In September 1652, they publicised their concerns
through a pamphlet named A Beacon Set On Fire.' Since 1649, the stationers wrote, over thirty
thousand copies of 'divers Impressions of several sorts of Popish Books in the English
Tongue' had been produced to entice the 'people of this Commonwealth unto the Popish
Religion'.2 Only the enforcement by the Rump Parliament of severe censorship laws, they
maintained, could stem the spread of Catholicism: if immediate measures were not taken to
suppress Catholic literature, Catholics would soon assume political and military power and
inflict a bloody retribution on Protestant England.3
The argument against a free press was aired again in October by Michael Sparke, another
Presbyterian printer, in A Second Beacon Fired by Scintilla. Like its predecessor, this work
ascribed the growth of Catholicism to the dissemination of 'Popish and Erroneous' books by
scheming Jesuits and urged the government to prosecute with a heavy hand those responsible
for 'spreading Gangreen'.4 In reply, a group composed mainly of Army officers published The
Beacons Quenched, a pamphlet which jointly advocated religious toleration and a liberal
press.5 It accused the stationers of being disingenuous in their contempt for Catholic
publications: 'Is not the sale of Popish Books', the 'Quenchers' asked, 'the greatest part of the
trade of some of them, who are also strongly reported to have a Factor in Rome itself?' 6 It also
argued that the 'Firers' had sounded the alarm about Catholic literature as mere cover for a
Presbyterian plot to overthrow the government.
Thomas H. Clancy, 'The Beacon Controversy, 1652-1657', RH, IX, April 1967 pp. 63-64; Alison Shell, 'Catholic texts and anti-Catholic prejudice in the l7thcentury book trade', in (eds.) Robin Myers and Michael Harris, Censorship and the control ofprint in England and France 1600-1910 (Winchester, 1992), p. 44.
2 A Beacon Set On Fire: Or The I-fumble Information of Certain Stationers, Citizens of London, to the Parliament and Commonwealth of England (London, 1652), p. 6.
Ibid., pp. 4-5.
"Quotations from A Second Beacon Fired by Scintilla (London, 1652), p. 5 and p. 7.
The signatories of The Beacons Quenched (London, 1652) were Colonel Thomas Pride, Lieutenant- Colonel William Gough, Major Tobias Bridge, Adjutant-General Richard Merest, Captain William Kiffen, Isaac Gray, George Gosfright and Samuel Richardson..
6lbid.,p.6.
17 In the last contribution to the controversy, the stationers responded with a detailed refutation of the statements by the supporters of 'Idolaters and Blasphemers'.' The Presbyterian faction also made a final plea for stricter regulation of the press to prevent Catholics from printing
'such books as tended to the dishonour of God and disturbance of the State'. 2 Parliament took notice and revived the Printing Act of 1649 with certain changes on 7 January 1653. The main responsibility for controlling the press had previously been entrusted to the Stationers'
Company, but under the new legislation power devolved to the Council of State which was authorised to control the number of printing firms in operation and to enforce from time to time such rules that it deemed necessary to combat abuses.3
This system operated until 28 August 1655 when Cromwell suddenly arrogated to himself absolute authority over the press and ordered the Council of State to enact the ordinances against unlicensed and scandalous titles. The Lord Protector specifically stated that all illegal printing tools and materials had to be destroyed and all persons who defied the censorship laws had to suffer 'corporal and pecuniary punishments'. 4 These instructions were rigidly enforced and most unofficial published sources of information were suppressed. This was certainly true of Catholic texts which were targeted once again by the censors. In January 1656, a cache of
Catholic books was discovered and publicly burnt in London. 5 During the year which followed the increased centralisation of censorship, only six new English Catholic titles were printed, fewer than a third of the number which had appeared in the twelve months before;6 and on 22
June 1658, the master and wardens of the Stationers' Company were ordered to concentrate on
The Beacon Flameing With a Non Obstanie: Or a JustUlcation of The Firing of the Beacon, By Way of Animadversion Upon the Book entituled The Beacons Quenched, Subscribed by Col. Pride, &c. (London, 1652), p. 5.
2 Ibid. p. 22.
(eds.) Firth and Rait, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, II, pp. 696-699; Siebert, Freedom of the Press, pp. 228-229.
CSP Dom /655, p. 301.
CSP Dom 1655-1656. p. 119.
6 Clancy. English Catholic Books 1641-1 700, p. ix and p. 197.
18 searching for 'blasphemous' Catholic works which were considered to be a particular threat to
the Commonwealth.'
Organised resistance to Catholic literature continued until May 1660 when Charles II
reclaimed power and the Cromwellian censorship laws became invalid. The restoration of the
monarchy also gave the Catholic community hope that the new King would abide by the
Declaration of Breda, his recent promise to grant a liberty of conscience to those whose
religious opinions did not disturb the national peace. The optimism instilled in Catholics by
this declaration was revealed in the production of titles which promoted the case for
toleration,2 including a catalogue of the names of over two hundred Catholics who had
suffered for their defence of the Crown. 3 It was compiled by Thomas Blount, a Catholic lawyer
from Orleton in Herefordshire,4 and first circulated on 29 May 1660, the very day that Charles
II entered London.5 Soon after, in July, Blount issued another pamphlet which emphasised the
association between Catholicism and Royalism in an effort to bolster the campaign for relief.
This tract, called Boscobel, highlighted the help that Catholics had given Charles II after his
defeat at the Battle of Worcester in September 1651 •6
Towards the end of 1660, Blount published a third offering, an almanac named the
Calendarium Catholicum which, defying a royal proclamation published on 25 September
'CSP Dorn 1658-1659, p. 71.
2 John Miller, Popery and Politics in England 1660-1688 (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 96 if.
Thomas Blount, A Catalogue of the Lords, Knights and Gentlemen (of the Catholick Religion) that were Slain in the late Warr, in Defence of their King and Countrey. As also of those whose Estates were sold by the Rump for that Cause (London, 1660).
Blount was born in Worcestershire in 1618 of strong recusant stock. He entered the Inner Temple in 1639 and was called to the Bar on 13 November 1648. See Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses: An £act History of All the Writers and Bishops who have had their Education in the Most Ancient and Famous University of Oxford, From the Ffleenth Year of King Henry the Seventh, Dom. 1500, to the End of the Year 1690 2 vols (London, l691--1692), II, cols 34-35; Gillow, 1, pp. 239-242; (ed.) Theo Bongaerts, The Correspondence of Thomas Blount (1618-1679) A Recusant Antiquary (Amsterdam, 1978), pp. 1-17.
(ed.) Andrew Clark. The Ljfe and Times of Anthony Wood, antiquary, of Oxford, 1632-1695, described by Himself3 vols (Oxford, 1891-1894), 1, p. 317.
6 Thomas Blount, Boscobel: Or, The History Of His Sacred Majesties Most miraculous Preservation After the Battle of Worcester, 3 Sept. 1651 (London, 1660).
19 against unlicensed almanacs,' woke the English Catholic periodical press from its slumber of twelve years. The Calendarium Catholicum was published anonymously, but the evidence for attributing it to Blount is strong, based as it is on the testimony of his friend, the Oxford bibliophile, Anthony Wood. In Wood's copy of the almanac for 1663, now at the Bodleian
Library, Oxford, he wrote the following: 'Note yt. ye authour of this AIm. Th. Blount'; and on the title-page of the Kalendarium Catholicum for 1686, also kept by the Bodleian, Wood explained that 'Such an Aim. as this, was published 1661. 62. 63 - and if I am not mistaken Th.
Blount of the Inner Temple had a hand in it'.
The Calendarium Catholicum was printed on duodecimo paper, a convenient size for concealing the work. Its contents resembled other contemporary almanacs inasmuch as it conveyed general information on astrological and economic matters. The Calendarium
Catholicum also gave Catholics details of the principal festivals, fasts and holy days of obligation that set them apart as members of a small nonconforming community. This information was vital to a people whose way of life was dominated, as John Bossy explains, by feasting, fasting and abstinence:
The year, natural and liturgical, turned on a sequence of festivals, and these in turn were balanced and prepared by periods of collective abstinence. For those for whom abstinence was not a permanent condition, the life of the household was an alternation of frugality and hospitality, fasts and feasts. There were considerable differences in local custoni, but by and large over a third of the days in the year were days of fasting or abstinence from meat. About a hundred were fast days: all Fridays, except during Christmas- and Eastertide, all the forty weekdays of Lent, the twelve Ember days, so far as they were not already accounted for, and the vigils of feasts that were locally felt to be important. One ate a ingle meal, which could not be taken before midday and must not include meat... Another forty days or so - the Sundays in Lent, all Saturdays except at Eastertide, the Rogation days (Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday before Ascension day) and, for some reason, the feast of St Mark (25 April) - were the days of abstinence, on which no meat was eaten.2
The Calendarium Catholicum had a separate political function: it contained a section under the title of 'Memorable Observations' which, giving a chronological record of late historical events, allowed Blount to testi1' to Protestant readers the loyalty of 'all sober Catholicks' to
(ed.) Robert Steele, A Bibliograph.y of Royal Proclamations of the Tudor and Stuart Sovereigns and of Others Published Under Authority 1485-17142 vols (Oxford, 1.9 10), 1, p. 391.
2 John Bossy, English Catholic Community, /570-1850 (London, 1975), p. 110.
20 the King and his government by lashing 'Oliver the late prodigious Tyrant and Regicide' and praising 'his Sacred Majesty King Charles the Second (whom God long preserve)'. This point was reinforced by the addition to the almanac of Blount's original list of Catholic lords, knights and gentlemen who had suffered for their allegiance to the monarchy in recent times.
According to Charles Dodd, the eighteenth-century Catholic historian, Blount belonged to a
'kind of a Junto in the way of learning' which counted among its members John Sergeant, the
Secretary of the English Chapter of secular clergy, John Austin, the renowned author and lawyer, and Thomas White, alias Blacklo, the controversial priest and prominent campaigner for a restored canonical hierarchy.' In June 1661, this Catholic cabal petitioned the House of
Lords to reduce the burden of anti-recusant penal statutes. A parliamentary committee was consequently established on 16 July and draft legislation for the removal of certain disabilities was prepared under its auspices. Blount's friends responded to this development by agreeing to exclude the Jesuits from the scheme and expressed their willingness to swear an oath denying the Pope's deposing power. Despite these securities, however, the campaign was scuppered in November by the bishops.of the Church of England who, on returning to the
House of Lords after their enforced absence, rejected any concession to recusants.2
The prospect of Catholic relief was not revived until December 1662 when Charles II recorded his debt of gratitude to the 'greatest part of our Roman Catholic subjects' and promised to extend toleration to those 'as shall live peaceably, modestly and without scandal'. 3 But
Parliament forced the King to retract his statement in March 1663 and made him support fresh legislation enforcing strict conformity to the re-established Church of England. In the two years after the restoration, the government had shown its determination to act against all
Dissenters, including Catholics. The 1661 Corporation Act set up commissions to evict municipal officials who refused to swear an oath of allegiance, and the 1662 Act of Uniformity
'Dodd, Church History of England, I, p. 257.
2 T.A. Birrell, 'English Catholics Without A Bishop 1655-1672', RH, IV, 1957-1958, p. 147 and p. 174; J.A. Williams, 'English Catholicism Under Charles 11: The Legal Position', RH, VII, October 1963, p. 123; Miller, Popery and Politics, pp. 98-99.
Cited J.P. Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 405-406.
21 removed from teaching and ecclesiastical offices individuals who failed to make the required declarations of loyalty. Two more measures against Nonconformists were implemented between 1664 and 1665 with the passage of the Conventicle Act which prohibited all assemblies not held in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer, and the Five Mile Act which restricted the movements of Non-Jurors. While specifically anti-Catholic statutes were not strictly enforced, the introduction of the new general measures against nonconformity made toleration of Catholics impossible.'
Throughout this uncertain period, the Calendarium Catholicum remained in print as the sole regular literary representative of the English Catholic Church and, adhering closely to its original format, continued to promote Catholics as loyal subjects of the King and government.2
The survival of the Calendarium Catholicum was a major achievement, considering that stringent censorship measures had been introduced in June 1662 with the passage of an 'Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious, treasonable, and unlicensed Books and Pamphlets, and for regulating of Printing and printing Presses'. 3 Like earlier legislation, this restricted the printing trade to the Stationers' Company in London and the two universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It also prohibited the publication, ownership or distribution of any title containing material contrary to the 'doctrine or discipline of the Church of England'.4 By definition, therefore, the Calendarium Caiholicum was illegal, and Thomas Blount faced the constant threat of being fined heavily or imprisoned indefinitely for compiling a seditious text.
In addition to these potential legal difficulties, Blount faced hostile competition from other annual almanacs which, as Bernard Capp has shown, promoted No Popery.5 The best known
Williams, 'English Catholicism Under Char,les II', p. 132; Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, p. 402; Miller, Popery and Politics, pp. 94 if; Coward, Stuart Age, pp. 293-295.
2 Every issue of Blount's almanac was named the Calendarium Catholicum except for the 1663 version which appeared as A New Almanack After the Old Fashion. At least one copy of every number has survived apart from that which presumably circulated in 1665 and for which no issue is known to be extant. See below, pp. 256-257.
J. Walker, 'The Censorship of the Press During the Reign of Charles II', History, XXXV, October 1950, p. 222; Siebert, Freedom of the Press. pp. 237 if; James Sutherland, The Restoration Newspaper and its Development (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 2 if.
"Cited Siebert, op. cit., p. 243.
Bernard Capp, Astrology and the Popular Press: English Almanacs 1500-1800 (London, 1979), p. 25,
22 of these directories was the Telescopium Uranicum, produced by the astrologer John Booker
who took delight in vilifying the Catholic clergy and predicting the decline of Catholicism.
Whether motivated by moral outrage or rather, as Anthony Wood claimed, by base jealousy
that his almanac was commercially less successful than the Telescopium Uranicum, Blount
wrote in January 1665, apparently with the help of John Sergeant and John Austin, a short tract
in direct reply to Booker and his 'blundering' directory. This pamphlet, appropriately named
Booker Rebuk 'd, alerted the public to the factual errors and weak prognostics that littered the
Telescopium Uranicum, a work which, in Blount's opinion, was fit only for 'Phanaticks and ill
subjects'.' The 'unsavoury expressions' in Blount's 'defamatory piece' roused Booker to
respond angrily and yet with some humour:
In the beginning of this last year, there flew abroad Skritch-Owl-like, a defamatory piece of paper from an unknown Author, which I shall not need a Holy Guide to direct me to, or a Geomantical Figure to discover; for I hear he hath taken up his Lodging in Sergeants-Inne in Woodstreet. But where he is now, or whether so or not, or whether done by any other his Complices and Confederates, I know not, nor do I value... The... Rebukes of that Anonymal Animal, I shall not now trouble my self or the Reader with; but as occasions offer, I shall remember him of; and laying aside his malicious ignorance, & the mistakes of the Press, and the unsavory expressions he hath scattered to bespatter my reputation, I shall not blot paper with, or foul or ink my fingers with him.. .The. . .rebukes of that filthy sheet, are not worth the while, and therefore I will make posterior use thereof in its proper way, when I have occasion.2
However, the argument progressed no further because Blount suspended the Calendarium
Catholicum after publishing the 1666 edition.
The decision not to print the Calendarium Catholicum was probably only reached just before the issue of 1667 had been due to appear and it is likely that external circumstances alone forced Blount to postpone publication. In September 1666, rumours that Catholics were responsible for the Great Fire of London led to a major demonstration of anti-Catholic feeling.
While this theory was discounted by the governmental committee appointed to investigate the
p. 150 and p. 157.
Thomas Blount, Booker Rebuk 'd For His Telescopium Uranicum Or Ephemeris: Wherein, from the Sun 's Ingress into the Cardinal Points; the Eclipses of the two great Luminaries; the Conjunction & Configuration of the Planets, and other Celestial Appendices, 'tis more then probably conjectured, That John Bookers Almanack 1665. is very Erroneous, to say no more (London, 1665), pp. 7-8.
2 Telescopium Uranicum repurgatum & Limatum. An Ephemeris or Physical, Astrological, and Meteorological observations for the year ofChrist's Incarnation MDCLX VI (London, 1666).
23 matter, Parliament remained concerned and persuaded Charles II to banish priests from the country and enforce the anti-Catholic laws in November.' Surrounded by paranoia and living under the renewed threat of penal legislation, Blount reasoned that it would be wise to stop publishing the Calendarium Catholicum, at least until the political climate changed. He was, however, to be disappointed: the popular fear of an imminent Catholic uprising persisted, and on 13 September 1667, the Privy Council ordered magistrates to tender the oaths of supremacy and allegiance to all government and military personnel. 2 On the evidence of this development, it was apparent that the situation had not improved and Blount therefore decided not to revive his almanac, preferring instead to write exclusively on historical, legal and lexical subjects during the final twelve years of his life.3
Catholics faced uncertainty for much of the next decade. A small measure of relief was granted by the Declaration of Indulgence on 15 March 1672 when, to secure a political alliance with
France, Charles II suspended the penal laws against Nonconformists and permitted Catholics freedom of private worship.4 However, this was revoked in February 1673 by Parliament which forced the King to assent to the Test Act requiring government officers to swear oaths of allegiance and supremacy, receive the sacrament in accordance with the rite of the Church of England and sign statements rejecting Catholic doctrines, including Transubstantiation.5
The opposition to Catholicism did not end there: in November, Charles 11 ordered the full enforcement of penal laws against recusants; in February 1674, responding to rumours of popish gunpowder plots, he ordered all Catholics who were not householders to leave London; and in February 1675, the Privy Council instructed priests to leave the country and decreed that Catholics could not come to court,, attend Catholic chapels in London or educate their
CSP Dom /666-1667, p. 127 and p. 175; John Kenyon, The Popish Plot (London, 1972), PP. 9-13; Miller, Popery and Politics, pp. 103-105.
2 Williams, 'English Catholicism Under Charles 11', p. 132; Kenyon, op. cit., p. 13; Miller, op. cit., p. 105.
For full details of Blount's later life and career, see (ed.) Bongaerts, Thomas Blount, pp. 44-6 1.
"Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, p. 402 and pp. 407-408.
Ibid., pp. 46 1-462.
24 children abroad; commissions were also appointed to levy statutory fines and sequester two- thirds of the estate owned by all convicted recusants.'
The drive against Catholicism was led by the Lord Treasurer, Thomas Osborne, later Earl of
Danby, who was anxious to allay public fears about Catholics. He also wanted to identify the monarchy more closely with an anti-Catholic political agenda because of concerns over
Charles II's brother and legitimate heir, James, Duke of York, who had privately converted to
Catholicism about 1669. This had been kept secret until 1673 when James resigned the office of Lord High Admiral in angry reaction to the Test Act and controversially took a Catholic princess, Maria of Modena, as his second wife. However, James did not stop attending services of the Established Church until Easter 1676 when he also disallowed his eldest daughter Mary from receiving communion.
In an attempt at a final settlement of the Catholic problem, and hoping to alleviate public anxiety over the succession, Osborne introduced two bills to Parliament early in 1677. The first gave registered Catholics who paid a weekly fine of one shilling an immunity from the penal laws which were to be executed only against secret recusants. The second required the future monarch to subscribe to the Test Act on the understanding that, in the event of a refusal, responsibility for the management of ecclesiastical affairs and the education of any royal offspring would devolve to the episcopate of the Established Church. Both bills failed to become law, as was celebrated later in the year by the poet-politician Andrew Marvell. In a scathing attack on Catholicism, he pointed to the recent parliamentary activity as evidence of a
Catholic conspiracy 'to change the Lawful Government of England into an Absolute Tyranny, and to Convert the Established Protestant Religion into down-right Popery'.2
Marvell's pamphlet went unanswered, demonstrating the paralysing effect of the resurgence of anti-Catholicism on the Catholic press which was limited throughout this period to small
Williams, 'English Catholicism Under Charles II', pp. 133-134; Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, p. 402 and p. 450; Kenyon, Popish Plot, pp. 15-16; Miller, Popery and Politics, p. 55, Pp. 116-119 and Chapter Seven; J.C.l-1. Aveling, The Handle and the Axe: The Catholic Recusants in England from Reformation to Emancipation (London, 1976), pp. 194-195; Coward, Stuart Age, pp. 309-312.
2 Andrew Marvell, An Account of the Growth of Popery and Arbitrary Government in England. More Particularly from the Long Prorogation, of November, 1675, Ending the 15". of February, 1676, till the Last Meeting of Parliament, the 16". ofJuly, 1677 (London, 1677), p. 3.
25 numbers of devotional works.' The government responded quickly on the rare occasion that anything more controversial appeared. In August 1676, the Privy Council ordered a search of
Thomas Blount's chambers for 'Popish and Unlicensed Bookes' which were to be seized and
'disposed of as the Law directs'. 2 This had been prompted by the publication in April of A letter from a gentleman at London, to his friend in the countrey: it took the government to task for supporting a French Protestant named De Luzancy who had caused a stir in November
1675 by accusing the Duchess of York's Jesuit confessor of threatening his life. Blount was suspected with a fellow lawyer, William Rogers, of dispersing the tract, but without evidence to prove its case, the Privy Council had to release both men. 3 Blount shrewdly distanced himself from controversy after this escape and spent the last part of his life concentrating exclusively on preparing a history of Herefordshire. This project was delayed, however, when
Blount fell ill in April 1679 and it remained unpublished when he died eight months later aged sixty-one from an apoplectic fit.4
Blount's friend, the antiquarian William Dugdale, attributed his death to anxiety caused by the severe persecution of Catholics that followed the 'revelation' in August 1678 of a Popish Plot.5
According to Titus Oates, until lately a mature student at the Jesuit establishment at St Omer in
France, Catholic activists were planning to murder Charles II and raise the Duke of York to the throne. This report was at first received by the King with' scepticism. It might have been dismissed completely had it not been for the discovery, on 17 October, of the strangled body of Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, the magistrate to whom Oates had sworn two depositions the month before. This outrage caused Parliament to persuade Charles 11 in November to issue
'Clancy, English Catholic Books 1641-1 700, p. ix and pp. 198-199.
2 PRO, PCR, 2/65/336,9 August 1676.
Fasti Oxonienses, or Annals of the University of Oxford, by Anthony a Wood, MA. of Merton College. The Second Part, Containing From the Year 164/ to the Year 1691, col. 352, in (ed.) Philip Bliss, Athenae Oxonienses, An Exact History of All the Writers and Bishops Who Have Had Their Education in the University of Oxford. To Which are Added the Fasti, or Annals of the Said University. By Anthony a Wood, MA. of Merton College 4 vols (London, 1813-1820); SP Dom 1675-1676, pp. 389-393; Kenyon, Popish Plot, pp. 18-19; (ed.) Bongaerts, Thomas Blount, p. 12, p. 165 and p. 304.
' Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, II, cols 34-35.
Bodleian Library, Mss. Wood, F41, f. 118 and f. 137, William Dugdale to Anthony Wood, 1 July 1679 and 6 March 1680 Wood, op. cit., col. 34.
26 proclamations enforcing the anti-recusant laws, commanding Catholics to leave London, instructing justices to tender the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to known or suspected
Catholics, and ordering the arrest of Catholic clergy. The Second Test Act was also passed preventing Catholics, with the exception of the Duke of York, from sitting in the House of
Lords, and therefore Parliament, as Catholics had been excluded from the Commons since
1563, until they formally declared their loyalty to the Protestant establishment.
The penal laws were fully enforced during the next two years and more than seventy Catholics died either in prison or on the scaffold. One of the first victims, executed on 3 December 1678 for high treason, was the Duke of York's former secretary, Edward Coleman. Acting on information supplied by Titus Oates, who named Coleman as a main conspirator in the Popish
Plot, the Privy Council seized his private papers. These revealed that Coleman had been negotiating with Louis XIV and the Pope since 1674 to advance policies favourable to France and Rome. The possibility that the Duke of York himself might have been involved, as
Coleman alleged, was of immense political value to Whig parliamentarians like Anthony
Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, who objected to any Catholic becoming King. They began a campaign to have James removed from the succession and introduced into the House of Commons an Exclusion Bill on 15 May 1679. This measure, however, failed to become law only because Charles II vehemently opposed any infringement of his brother's hereditary right to the throne and prorogued Parliament on 27 May.'
The confusion caused by the Exclusion Crisis, together with continued concern about the alleged Popish Plot, was relevant to the future development of the English Catholic periodical press. It ensured that Parliament neglected to renew the 1662 Licensing Act, which had restricted the number of Catholic works produced, and meant that the authorities were left without adequate legislation to regulate the press effectively after 10 June 1679.2 This lapse
Information for this and the preceding paragraph taken from John Warner, The History of English Persecution of Catholics and the Presbyterian Plot 2 vols (London, 1953), 1, passim; Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, pp. 451-452 and pp. 465-466; Kenyon, Popish Plot, Chapters Three to Six; Miller, Popery and Politics, pp. 154-188; Aveling, Handle and the Axe, pp. 204-218; Coward, Stuart Age, pp. 325 if.
2 Timothy Crist, 'Government Control of the Press After the Expiration of the Printing Act in 1679', Publishing History: The Social, Economic and Literary History of Book, Newspaper and Magazine Publishing, V, 1979, pp. 49-77.
27 was first exploited, however, by the Earl of Shaftesbury who sponsored Benjamin Harris, a
London Anabaptist stationer and bookseller, to publish an anti-Catholic bi-weekly newsletter
called the Domestick Intelligence, Or News both from City and Country which was issued for
the first time on 7 July. This was the second anti-Catholic newsletter to appear since the
restoration, the first being the Weekly Pacquet ofAdvice from Rome: or, the History of Popery
which was originally published by the Protestant pamphleteer, Henry Care, on 3 December
1678.
Seven weeks after Harris founded the Domestick Intelligence, another twice-weekly news-
sheet, confusingly named The Domestick Intelligence, Or, News both from City and Country, was separately published by Nathaniel Thompson, a Catholic publisher and printer working
independently in London at the Cross Keys in Fetter Lane.' Born in Ireland about 1648,
Thompson began his career aged fifteen at the printing-house of William Bladen in Dublin.
Soon after, Thompson moved to London where, in 1667, he gave evidence to the
parliamentary committee appointed to investigate the Great Fire after a witness identified him
as having attended the Roman Catholic chapel at Somerset House:
He said, that he was a Roman Catholic, and thanks God for it. He said, he was no Priest, but wished he were in a capacity to be one. He said, he had not taken the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy nor would do it. He said, he would take any Oath that any Christian Prince should require, but not the Oath of Allegiance, intimating some mixture in it. He said, he had taken the Oath of Allegiance to the King of Spain, and was a subject to the King of Spain.2
Despite these imprudent remarks, Thompson escaped punishment. He then completed his apprenticeship and was received as a full member of the Stationers' Company on 6 December
1669. In 1671, having spent the interim employed by William Godbid, he entered into
For Thompson, see Leona Rostenberg. 'The Catholic Reaction: Nathaniel Thompson, "Protector of the Faith", in Literary, Political, Scient/ic, Religious & Legal Publishing, Printing & Bookselling in England, 1551-1700: Twelve Studies 2 vols (New York, 1965). 11, pp. 315-343; Gerard Maria Peerbooms, Nathaniel Thompson: Tory Printer, Ballad Monger and Propagandist (Nijmegen, 1983).
2 London's Flames Reviv 'd; Or, An Account of the Several Informations Exhibited to A Committee Appointed by Parliament, September the 25" 1666. To Enquire into the Burning of London. With Several other Informalions concerning other Fires in Southwark Fetter-Lane and elsewhere. By all which it appears, that the said Fires were contrived, and carried on by the Papists. Now humbly offered to the Consideration of all True Protestants (London, 1669), p. 22.
D.F. McKenzie, Stationers' Company Apprentices 1 641-1 700 (Oxford, 1974), p. 15.
28 partnership with Thomas Ratcliffe, a long-established master printer with an extensive
business 'in Newstreet between Shoelane and Fetterlane'.'
While working with Ratcliffe, Thompson next attracted the attention of the authorities when
he was accused of producing a number of unnamed seditious pamphlets in January 1676.
Although Thompson was exonerated of this particular charge, he was less fortunate in January
and February 1677 when his house was twice searched by the wardens of the Stationers'
Company. They seized copies of several unlicensed texts, including at least one 'book against
the church [of England]', which he was then printing.2 Thompson was committed to Newgate
for this serious contravention of the censorship laws and remained there until 9 March when he
was freed after promising the Privy Council that he would never again print any objectionable
material. By September, however, he had broken this pledge and was called to account for
publishing a 'scandalous and unlicensed paper' named Fraud and oppression detected and
arraigned. This tract was deemed offensive essentially because it contained material 'greatly
injurious to the dignity and character of the Dutch Ambassador and tending to the disturbing of
the amity and good correspondence that is between his Majesty and the States General'.3
Thompson encountered more trouble in July 1678 when he was indicted on a charge of
producing Catholic mass books for a bookseller named James Thompson. It would appear that
the two men escaped punishment, but they were both targeted with the outbreak of the Popish
Plot after the government received information that James Thompson had publicly stated his
regret 'that the nation should not be wiser than to give credit to Oates' who, he said, was a
'great rogue'. Accordingly, on 26 October, the bookseller's home was searched and 'near thirty thousand catechisms and other [Catholicj books' were seized. Three days later,
Nathaniel Thompson was himself arrested, charged with printing 'divers thousands' of illegal
Cited Peerbooms, Nathaniel Thompson, p. 6.
2 HMC, Ninth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. Part II. Appendix and Index (London, 1884), p. 73.
CSP Dom 1677-1678, p. 376. Further details relating to this section can be found in ibid., p. 152 and p. 206; HMC, op. cit., pp. 69-74; (ed.) Bowler, London Sessions Records, pp. 199-200; Rostenberg, 'Catholic Reaction', pp. 330-331; Peerbooms, op. cit., pp. 8-11.
29 texts for James Thompson and sent to the Gatehouse prison in Westminster.' Nathaniel
Thompson was kept here until 21 November when he was freed after acknowledging his guilt and providing bail as security for his future good behaviour. James Thompson was not so fortunate because he was released from the Gatehouse late in December, but only on condition that he left England for a life of permanent exile in Flanders.2
Thomas Ratcliffe died at the beginning of December 1678. During the months that followed,
Thompson had a difficult period of transition as he struggled alone to maintain a business in slump. Since 1675, a year in which Ratcliffe and Thompson had published sixteen original titles, they had received an aggregate of only eight new commissions. 3 This desperate situation only worsened after Ratcliffe's death when a significant number of clients suddenly decided to withdraw their patronage and vital custom was lost. The firm's activity was also deliberately restricted in the first half of 1679 by Thompson. Anxious not to forfeit the bail which he had lately paid, he turned his back on the high returns on unlicensed books, and limited himself to printing and publishing a handful of pamphlets considered inoffensive by the authorities.4
The prospects for Thompson's business remained uncertain until the 1662 Licensing Act expired which gave him an opportunity to increase his workload and income by entering the potentially lucrative market of newspape.r publication. Consequently, on 26 August 1679, The
Domeslick Intelligence appeared for the first time and, composed and produced by a loyal subject of Rome, it heralded the revival of the English Catholic periodical press. In keeping with its objective to 'prevent False Reports', the opening number of The Domestick intelligence commented on the case of Daniel Macarthy, a priest who had been arrested the
HMC, Eleventh Report, Appendix, Part Ii. The Manuscripts of the House of Lords. 1678-1688 (London, 1887), pp. 54-56. See Journals of the House of Lords, XIII, pp. 303-304, p. 306, p. 310 and p. 369; HMC. Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. Part I. Report and Appendix (London, 1874), p. 234; J.B. Williams, 'Nathaniel Thompson and the "Popish Plot", Month, CXXXVIII, July 1921, p. 32; M.D.R. Leys, Catholics in England 1559-1829: A Social History (London. 1961), p. 180.
2 iournals of the House of Lords, XIII, p. 417 and p.423; HMC, Eleventh Report, pp. 55-56.
'(ed.) Donald Wing, Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and British America and of English Books Printed in Other Countries 164 1-I 700 4 vols (New York, 1994- 1998), IV, p. 742 and p. 885.
' Peerbooms, Nathaniel Thompson, p. 15.
30 day before on suspicion of being a conspirator in the Popish Plot merely because his diary was found to contain the words 'white bread'. This inscription was interpreted by the arresting constable as referring to Thomas Harcourt, the Jesuit Provincial also known as Whitbread, who had been executed on 20 June. But; as Thompson reasoned, the words were without any sinister connotation and meant no more than they stated.'
This apparent questioning of the Popish Plot angered Benjamin Harris who lambasted his
'base and scandalous' rival through the Domestick Intelligence for attempting to 'make our
Fears and Jealousies of Popery ridiculous'. 2 Thompson replied immediately and without restraint in the following advertisement:
There hath lately dropt into the World an Abortive Birth (some fifteen days before the Legitimate Issue) by a Factious, Infamous and Perjur'd Antichristian, a senseless lying Pamphlet by the name of the City and Country News. This is the first of his offspring that ever bore name, the rest being Spurious or Illegitimate (like his Natural Issue) which he either durst not own, or wou'd not bring to the Font to receive the marks of Christianity, no more then himself; although under the Veil of Hypocrisy and Dissimulation (by Penance of fourteen days Fasting and Prayer) he endeavoured to Insinuate himself a Sactified Member in the Anabaptist Synagogue, which (if he be any) is the highest title of a Christian he can pretend to. This Pamphlet-Napper and Press-Pyrat hath cruised abroad since he put up for himself; to make a prize of other mens Copies, to stuff his own Cargo with ill gotten profit, making his business Cheating and Usurpation to Defraud all men; and by Factious Libells to sow Sedition amongst the people, and frighten Allegiance from the Subjects Bosoms. Witness many of late, having cheated me and others twenty times over. Nor is it sufficient to cheat you of your Copy, till his malice pursue to ruinë your Person, as in the Case of Blew Paper Books dropt in the Street, &c. Now I leave your selves and all Honest men to bejudges whether of the two be the best Intelligences, but likewise from mine to make up his Senseless Scrawl; as particularly the Relation of MacCarte the Jesuit taken in St James, which he inserted in his for want of matter, three days after the same was published by me in a single half sheet: And this is the whole Proceeding of this infallible News-monger.3
The general charge of plagiarism was, of course, untrue and ought to have been levelled by
Harris against Thompson: he had, after all, copied the title, layout and format of a publication which predated his own by fifty days. Consistent with the original Domestick Intelligence,
Thompson also began his series with what he falsely claimed was the sixteenth number and,
TD!, 26 August 1679. Macarthy was condemned in May 1680 at the Old Bailey on evidence supplied by Titus Oates.
2 Domestick Intelligence, 2 September 1679.
TD!, 5 September 1679.
31 like Harris, issued his paper on Tuesdays and Fridays. The confusion caused by this deliberate duplication concerned Harris who felt it necessary to give public notice on 5 September 1679 that his was the only authentic Domestick Intelligence. Indeed, until it was renamed as The
True Domestick Intelligence after two weeks, Thompson's periodical could be distinguished from its competitor only by the different imprint and the inclusion in its title of the definite article.
The overall similarity between the two sheets extended, as Thompson had intimated, to the
items of information which they both contained. On 9 September, both journals stated that
Samuel Pepys, who was then impeached for high treason on suspicion of involvement in the
Popish Plot, had lately travelled to Windsor where his request to see Charles II had been denied. Additional details were given in The True Domestick Intelligence which revealed that
Pepys had eventually managed to secure an audience, but had embarrassingly been rebuffed when he tried to kiss the King's hand.' This disclosure displeased Pepys and warrants were drafted to arrest Harris and Thompson for publishing a 'loud and infamous Libbell'. 2 But the
matter was resolved on 19 September when Harris issued a disclaimer stating that the report about Pepys had been 'altogether False and Scandalous'.3 Thompson, however, did not apologise publicly and yet he avoided prosecution, presumably because Pepys did not realise that the paper printed at Fetter Lane was different to that produced by Harris at the Stationers'
Arms in Cornhill.
In his full-length study of Thompson, Gerard Maria Peerbooms has pointed out that, regardless
of the evident similarities, the two Domeslick Intelligences represented opposing political
viewpoints: Harris founded his news-sheet to champion the pro-Exclusionist Whig party;
Thompson established a Tory paper which loyally defended the Duke of York and the
government.4 When Charles II stopped Parliament from meeting in the autumn of 1679, Harris
Domestick Intelligence, 9 September 1679; TDI, 9 September 1679.
2 Bodleian Library, Mss. Rawlinson, A173 if. 72-74.
Domestick Intelligence, 19 September 1679. See Arthur Bryant, Samuel Pepys: The Years of Peril (Cambridge, 1936), p. 278.
Peerbooms. Nathaniel Thompson, pp. 1-2 and pp. 25-26.
32 used his Domestick Intelligence to promote a petitioning movement organised by the Whigs in
an attempt to force the King to reverse his decision.' Thompson, on the other hand, fully
supported the government in its opposition to this campaign and welcomed the royal
proclamation against tumultuous petitions issued on 16 December. 2 I-Ic also took advantage of
the situation to attack Harris in January 1680 for kindling sedition by filling The Domestick
Intelligence with stories of the petitioners' 'pretended success'.3
Unfortunately, in his presentation of Thompson as a Tory propagandist, Peerbooms rejects the
evidence that he was also a Catholic. Thompson's unequivocal protestation of faith in 1667 is
ignored altogether and his involvement in the Catholic press before 1679 is unconvincingly
dismissed with the explanation that he was a mercenary who accepted any paid work.4
Peerbooms instead maintains that Thompson was a staunch Protestant and, on the principal
basis that he occasionally advertised anti-Catholic literature in his Domestick Intelligence,
rejects the idea that this paper championed Catholicism.5 He thereby partly corroborates a
view expressed earlier by Susan J. Acheson. Although acknowledging that Thompson was a
Catholic, she argues that his Domestick Intelligence cannot be considered Catholic because 'it
did not claim in any sense to be the voice of nor to represent the English Catholic
community'.6
In deference to Peerbooms and Acheson, it has to be conceded that Thompson did not overtly
reveal his news-sheet, at least during the first four months of its life, to be an organ of
Catholicism. Hence, throughout this early period, besides the report on the arrest of Daniel
Macarthy, Thompson vindicated Catholics on only one occasion: in October 1679, he refuted a
current rumour that they had opposed the election to Parliament of Sir Thomas Player, the
Domestick Intelligence, 26 December 1679, and 2, 6 and 9 January 1680; Protestant (Domestic/c) Intelligence, 16, 23 and 27 January 1680. Harris renamed his paper as the Protestant (Domestick) Intelligence on 16 January 1680.
2 TDI, 16 December 1679.
Ibid., 27 January 1680.
Peerbooms, Nathaniel Thompson, p. 15.
Ibid., p. 25 and p. 28.
Acheson, 'Catholic Journalism', p. 80.
33 Chamberlain of London, asserting that the story had been devised by 'such Commonwealth
men as wound the Church slyly'.' In response to Peerbooms and Acheson, it needs to be
considered that Thompson founded his Domestick Intelligence at the very height of the
Protestant backlash to the alleged Catholic conspiracy. The news-sheet appeared for the first
time at the very end of the 'great holocaust' of the Popish Plot which claimed the lives of
fourteen Catholics between 20 June and 27 August 1679: one layman, two Franciscans, four
seminary priests and seven Jesuits.2 Thompson's guarded approach can therefore be
interpreted not as a rejection nor as a compromise of Catholic identity, but as the natural
response of a Catholic who was both known to the authorities and working in unusually
dangerous circumstances. 3 Peerbooms and Acheson, however, fail to appreciate that this was
the case. Perhaps more seriously, they ignore the fact that Thompson began to emerge from
behind his barricade in January 1680 to champion the English Catholic community with
attacks on its leading enemies.
Serious doubts about the Popish Plot were first raised on 18 July 1679 when the Lord Chief
Justice, Sir William Scroggs, criticised the testimony presented on behalf of the prosecution by
Titus Oates and a fellow notorious informant, William Bedloe, in the case of Sir George
Wakeman, the royal physician, and three Benedictines who stood trial at the Old Bailey
charged with conspiring to assassinate the King. The jury's decision to acquit the four
defendants was controversial and there followed a spate of tracts attacking Scroggs. Articles of
misdemeanour were also brought before the Privy Council in January 1680 by Oates and
Bedloe who accused Scroggs of misleading the jury by deprecating them and their evidence.4
Only Thompson came to the Lord Chief Justice's defence. In his True Domestick Intelligence
of 23 January, he poured cold water on the Popish Plot, without offending the government, by
offering a full account of that 'compleat Justification' whereby, two days before, Scroggs had
TDI, 7 October 1679.
2 Kenyon, Popish Plot, p. 180.
Rostenberg, 'Catholic Reaction', pp. 342-343.
4 Domestick Intelligence, 22 July, and 8 and 14 August 1679; Warner, History of English Persecution of Catholics, 1, pp.304-307 and pp. 317-318; Kenyon, op. cit., pp. 168-178; Crist, 'Government Control of the Press', pp. 52-53; Peerbooms, Nathaniel Thompson, p. 22 and p. 27.
34 cleared himself of the libels presented by Oates and Bedloe.' Harris, on the other hand,
actively supported Oates and Bedloe for taking action against Scroggs, and he appealed in his
Domestic Intelligence for other persons who 'have been oppressed or injured by the said Lord
Chief Justice' to come forward.2
Just before Thompson made his brief indirect assault on Oates and Bedloe, he began a more
pointed campaign against Sir William Wailer, the officious magistrate for Westminster who
had personally arrested most of the Catholics taken in London since October 1678. In the
issues of his True Domestick Intelligence for 20 January and 10 February 1680, Thompson
derided Wailer for giving credence to a rumour that Thomas Bedingfield, a Jesuit who had
died in prison some months before, was stilt alive and plotting to murder Bedloe. 4 Then, in
March, Thompson criticised Walter for his treatment of a gentleman named Christian who had
been arrested on suspicion of harbouring Catholic priests and conspiring against leading pro-
Exclusionists. According to Thompson, Wailer had acted outside the law by preventing
Christian from obtaining bail and threatening to have him hanged if he obstructed legal
proceedings.5
Thompson had to pay a price for his outspokenness. On 26 March, WaIler had his revenge by
arresting Thompson and charging him with treason on the trumped-up basis that he had
planned to levy war against the King by printing the following innocuous report:
Several Apprentices in and about the City of London, (not well understanding what they did) having been perswaded to subscribe a Petition to his Majesty for the sitting of the Parliament, afterwards understanding how his Majesty resented that way of proceeding, have, upon better consideration, to shew their dislike of what they have done, resolved in solemn manner to sacrifice the Rump, that the present Age may keep in memory the practices of4l and not walk by that president.6
TDI, 23 January 1680.
2 Protestant (Do,nestick) Intelligence, 29 January 1680.
Kenyon, Popish Plot. p. 190; Peerbooms, Nathaniel Thompson, p. 28.
TDI, 20 January and 10 February 1680.
Ibid., 9-12 March 1680.
°Ibid., 6 February 1680.
35 In an attempt to secure his freedom, Thompson offered Wailer bail of £1000, but this was
refused and he ended up in the Gatehouse. Despite his confinement, Thompson was not denied
access to pen, ink and paper, and was therefore allowed to write with normal regularity, and
with some outside help, his 'popishly affected' 1 True Domestick Intelligence. He commented
from his cell on a controversial attempt by several parishioners of St Bride's to destroy the
'antient Annual Elective Vestry in that Parish, and to set up in stead thereof a Rump-Vestry for
life'.2 Thompson's criticisms of those responsible for promoting this change caused great
offence and resulted in his being fined over £3 for printing false and scandalous material in
June l680. By then, however, Thompson was out of prison: he had been released on 21 April
after it was disclosed that Wailer, who had lost his commission as a magistrate eleven days
before, had not registered a formal indictment against him.4
While Thompson was in the Gatehouse, a panel of twelve judges considered, at the King's
request, how far the royal prerogative could be used for 'regulating the abuses of the Presse by pamphlets and news Bookes'. 5 At the beginning of May, they told Charles II that he had the
legal authority to prohibit any publication that tended to the 'Breach of the Peace and
Disturbance of the Kingdome'.6 A proclamation was consequently issued which stated that many sheets had lately appeared full of 'idle and malicious' reports, expressly prohibited the
unlicensed publishing of news, and warned those who defied the order that they would be
'proceeded against according to the utmost severity of the Law'. 7 This instruction, of course, applied to Thompson and he at once suspended his newsletter in absolute obedience to the government: the final number of The True Domestick Intelligence was published on 11 May.
Journals of the House of Commons, IX, p. 689.
2 TDI, 16-20 April 1680.
Ibid., 20-23 April 1680; Journals of the House of Commons, IX, p. 689.
4 A Narrative of the Proceedings at the Sessions-house In the Old-Bailey, April21, 1680. The Number of persons Condemned for High-Treason and other Crimes (London, 1680), p. 4; CSP Dom 1679-1 680, p. 425 and p. 427.
PRO, PCR, 2/68/477, 14 April 1680.
6 Ibid., 2/68/496, 5 May 1680.
'Ibid., 2/68/512-513, 12 May 1680.
36 The proclamation was effectively enforced until 28 December 1680 when, without licence,
Benjamin Harris renewed his Protestant (Domestick) Intelligence,' and Langley Curtis, another Whig-sponsored publisher, issued the first number of the True Protestant Mercury.2
Thompson, however, did not take part in the revival of the newspaper trade until 23 February
1681 when, persuaded by friends to respond to the 'Club of Factious Scriblers', 3 he directly approached Charles II:
Nathaniel Thompson to the King. Petition for licence to publish a weekly account of news and remarkable accidents (not meddling with matters of State) and likewise of such projections, mathematical and others, as shall be invented or projected by any of the King's subjects. He formerly published an Intelligence of domestic news, wherein he disabused loyal subjects and discovered the notorious falsehoods published by disaffected persons, which he discontinued in obedience to the proclamation, but, though since the last sessions the same disaffected persons have revived weekly their intelligences and other news-books to inflame the people, he has refrained to renew his said intelligence without the King's leave.4
The reply that this address received is unknown, but whether or not royal approval was given,
Thompson produced on 9 March the first number of a journal deceptively named The Loyal
Protestant and True Domestick Intelligence. 5 This work, Thompson advertised, would serve primarily to enlighten the world about the forgery of the 'cursed Popish Plot', and in keeping with this objective he featured in the opening number a letter from a Dublin-based correspondent who rejected Harris's 'late Dreadful Reports' that Catholics in Ireland were hoarding munitions and murdering Protestants.6
Rumours of a Catholic conspiracy in Ireland had been rife since the year before when a number of persons suborned by agents acting for the Earl of Shaftesbury arrived in London to testify that the Irish Protestant establishthent was being threatened by prominent Catholics. At
Harris had last published the Protestant (Domestick) Intelligence on 16 April 1680. The revived version appeared twice-weekly until 15 April 1681 when it was discontinued.
2 The True Protestant Mercuiy remained in continuous circulation until October 1682.
LPTDI, 9 March 1681.
CSP Dom 1680-168/, p. 181.
Thompson's paper came out twice a week. The first number was printed on a Wednesday, but the news-sheet thereafter appeared on Tuesdays and Saturdays. As from 20 October 1681, an additional third weekly number was published on Thursdays.
6 LPTDI. 9 March 1681. See Protestant (Domeslick) Intelligence, 11 February and 9 March 1681.
37 the beginning of 1681, however, one of the witnesses, David Fitzgerald, retracted his evidence.
Before the Privy Council on 11 February, he gave information against William Hetherington
who, it was alleged, had played the central role in enlisting Irishmen to commit perjury.'
Thompson wrote a tract which gave an account of this hearing. 2 He also used his news-sheet
during the early months of its life to vindicate Fitzgerald who, it was asserted, had given 'full
proof and testimony both of his Loyalty and Integrity', and to castigate Hetherington and his
'seditious Brethren Fanaticks' for continuing to maintain that a Popish Plot had been hatched
in Ireland.3
At the time that Thompson re-established his Domestick Intelligence, the other main topic of
public discussion was an Irish Catholic named Edward Fitzharris who had been committed to
Newgate in February 1681 for possessing a manuscript work which advocated deposing
Charles II for his stubborn refusal to exclude Catholics from the throne. In a desperate attempt
to extricate himself from a charge of treason, Fitzharris controversially alleged after his arrest
that the Queen, the Duke of York and the Earl of Danby had been involved in the murder of
Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey. 4 This claim was supported by Titus Oates and the Earl of
Shaftesbury who, eager to inject new lif&into the Popish Plot, both made representations to the
King's Bench on Fitzharris' behalf. In strong opposition to his fellow Irishman, however,
Thompson printed articles which pointed out inconsistencies in his evidence and distanced him
from the London Catholic community.5
After some delay, Fitzharris was tried on 9 June, found guilty of high treason and executed on
1 July. Sharing the same scaffold on the same day was the last priest to die for his religion in
England, Oliver Plunket, Archbishop of Armagh and Catholic Primate of All Ireland, who had
'LPTDI, 16-19 March, 30 March-2 April, 13-16 April and 28 May 1681; Kenyon, Popish Plot, pp. 196- 197; Peerbooms, Nathaniel Thompson, p. 45.
2 True and BriefAccount of the Proceedings between Mr David Fitzgerald and William Hetherington, before His Majesty in Council, on Friday the I I" of February 1680/1 (London, 1681).
LPTDI, 12 April 1681. See ibid., 9 and 15 March, 16 and 19 April, 21 and 24 May, and 7, 25 and 28 June 1681.
Ibid., 17 and 19 May 1681; Warner, History of English Persecution of Catholics, 11, pp. 460-461; Peerbooms, op. cit., pp. 53-54; Sutherland, Restoration Newspaper, pp. 56-58.
5 LPTDI,7and 10 May, and4and 11 June 1681.
38 originally been arrested in December 1678, accused of conspiring to cause a revolt in his own
country.' As in the case of Fitzharris, SirFrancis Pemberton, Scroggs' successor as Lord Chief
Justice, ruled that the details of Plunket's trial could not be reported.2 Despite this order,
however, Thompson showed his opposition to the prosecution by conveying news of a senior
French diplomat's rejection of evidence that Plunket had asked France to bring an army to
Ireland.3 On 2 July, Thompson also gave readers of his Domestick Intelligence the full text of
Plunket's public protestation of innocence delivered immediately before his death, 4 which he
had already published in a separate pamphlet on the day of Plunket's execution.5
For repeatedly questioning the Popish Plot and supporting his fellow Catholics, Thompson was
indicted at the end of August by the Committee of Grievances 6 which declared that his
Doinestick Intelligence tended to the 'Advancement and Introduction of Popery, and to the
Suppression and Extirpation of the true Protestant Religion':
Nathanael Thompson, by such Printing and Publication of the said Libel, as aforesaid, has wickedly and maliciously endeavoured, I. To sow Dissention and Discord amongst Protestants, thereby to render them an easier prey unto their common Enemies the Papists. 2. To Countenance and Abet the Villanous Contrivances of the Popish Conspirators, who have endeavoured to cast Fictitious Plots upon Protestants, thereby to make way for their own Hellish Plot to take effect. 3. To Villifie and bring into the Dis-esteem of his Majesty and the whole Nation, the Commons of England, when Assembled in Parliament, by Arraigning and impudently Condemning their Proceedings. 4. To render his Majesties Protestant Subjects in general, and more particularly those in this City, suspected to him, by mis-representations of, and odious reflections upon their Legal Proceedings in their Common-Halls, and Common Councils, as also by False and Ignominious reflections upon some of their Magistrates, and ,by Arraigning the Integrity of Juries of this City, for bringing in Verdicts according to their Judgments and Consciences. Lastly, To disgrace and discountenance Religion it self, by an Ironical, Immoral, and Atheistical way of writing, against such as he endeavours to Stigmatize by the Name of True Protestants. All which the said actings and
Warner, History of English Persecution of Catholics, 1, p. 230 and II, pp. 460-461; Kenyon, Popish Plot. pp. 203-204; Peerbooms, Nathaniel Thompson, pp. 47-48; Sutherland, Restoration Newspaper, pp. 54-56.
2 LPTDI, II June 1681.
Ibid., 21 June 1681.
4 lbid.,2 July 1681.
The Last Speech of Mr Oliver Plunket, Titular Primate of/re/and, who was Executed at Tyburn on Friday the 1 of this Instant July, 168/. Written by his Own Hand (London, 1681).
6 LPTDI, 3 September, and 1 and 27 October 1681; CSP Dom 1680:1681, p. 517; Narcissus Luttrell, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs From September 1678 to April 1714 6 vols (Oxford, 1857), 1, p. 135 and p. 139.
39 doings of him, the aforesaid Nathanael Thompson, do highly tend to the dishonour of Almighty God, and of all good Government, and are against the Peace of our Sovereign Lord the King.'
A bill was consequently found against Thompson for publishing a seditious paper, but the fact that more draconian measures were not taken provoked his opponents to take the law into their own hands on 17 November:
This day Nat. Thompson, going'through Fleet-street about 11 of the Clock in the day, was dogged by some Persons between the two Temple Gates; One of them shewd his Valour, came behind him, (and without any other Complement,) first struck him with a Cane or Stick, three or four blows upon the Head;... But the Heroe being in some likelihood of kissing the Ground; divers of his friends parted them; But his fury was so great, that he again Assaulted him, and kicked him upon the Belly; Whereupon he catcht him by the Legg, and was again in jeopardy of falling; Then he was quite taken off, and by much perswasion withdrew into an adjacent Common-wealth Coffee- house; And of that Hector, we heard no more at that time. He being thus rid of him, and retiring into a Shop to clean his Cloaths, and recover himself, several others of the Factious Crew came from the same place, and fell upon him without any provocation,.., and would have certainly murdered him, had he not made his escape up stairs.2
According to Thompson, the rabble that gave chase threatened to throw him on a bonfire erected by Whig Exclusionists at Smithfield to commemorate Queen Elizabeth's birthday.
Thompson having eluded his enemies, the crowd had to be satisfied with burning him in effigy
'with his Holiness Cross-Keys at his Girdle, and a bundle of Popish Catechisms under his right arm, making a thousand wry faces at the sight of a Pillory'.3
This violent opposition ultimately failed to prevent Thompson from continuing to expose the falsity of the Popish Plot in his Domestick Intelligence. On the contrary, he wrote, it moved him to intensify his campaign for 'laying open the Villainies of Oates and the rest of his
Perjur'd Disciples'.4 Thompson at first tried to discredit Oates by announcing that he was an
'At the General Sessions of the Peace, and Gaol Delivery, held for the City of London, on Wednesday the 31' of August, at Justice-Hall in the Old-Bayly, in the three and thirtieth year of our Sovereign Lord, Charles, &c. (London, 1681).
2 LPTDI, 19 November 1681.
The Procession: Or, the Burning of the Pope in Effigie, in Smithfield-Rounds, On the J7th of November 1681. Being Queen Elizabeths Birth-day. Describing The Several Pageants, and rare Devices of the Popes, Cardinals, Jesuits, Friers, and many others. As likewise a Pageant of several Effigies in a Pillory drawn by Horses upon a Sledge. Several painted Pieces, and Fire-works, &c. Far exceeding whatever has been exposed in this nature. With the signication of the several Hieroglyphicks. Humbly dedicated to his Holiness (London, 1681), p. 2.
Nathaniel Thompson, A Choice Collection of 120 Loyal Songs: All of them written since the Two late Plots, (viz) The Horrid Salamanca Plot in 1678 and the Fanatical Conspiracy in 1683. Intermix! with
40 Anabaptist and disclosing details of occasions on which he had been accused of committing
sodomy.' But Thompson scored a more direct hit in January 1682 when he published two
letters allegedly written by the son of Oates' former close associate, Israel Tonge, which
unequivocally confirmed that the two men had together contrived the whole story of a Catholic
conspiracy.2 Simpson Tonge had originally testified in August 1680 that his father and the
'Doctor of Salamanca' had fabricated the Popish Plot with the help of the Earl of Shaftesbury.
Within a matter of weeks, however, he retracted the whole story, and when Thompson revived
it, claimed that the 'whisling Intelligencer' had printed this 'scandalous and lying Aspersion'
without his knowledge or consent.3
Thompson struck another decisive blow against the Popish Plot in January 1682 when he
printed a letter from a correspondent identified only as 'EM' who questioned the official
account of Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey's death. It had been accepted that the magistrate had
been strangled and stabbed by Catholics anxious to keep their conspiracy secret. This
interpretation was based mainly on the testimony of Miles Prance, a Catholic goldsmith: in
February 1679, he condemned two fellow Catholics, Robert Green and Lawrence Hill, by
stating that they had murdered Godfrey with the help of a Protestant named Henry Berry.4
However, 'EM' conjectured that Godfrey had been run through with his own sword 'some time
after his Death',5 and he thus corroboratd a current rumour that Godfrey had hanged himself
before being stabbed by friends or relatives who, on discovering the corpse, had taken drastic
action to disguise an embarrassing suicide. 6 The fact that Thompson 'thought it not amiss' 7 to
some New Love Songs Wi/h a Table to find every Song To which is added, An Anagram, and an Accrostic on the Salamanca Doctor (London, 1684).
'LPTDI, 22 and 31 December 1681; 10 and 24 January 1682.
2 Ibid., 3 and 19 January 1682.
Mr Tonges Vindication, In Answer to the Malicious and Lying Aspersions thrown upon him by Thomson and the Observator: Veritas non quaerit Angu/os (London, 1682).
Sheila Williams, 'The Pope-Burning Processions of 1679, 1680 and 1681', Journal of the Warburg and Courtaz4ld Institutes, XXI, 1958, p. 108; Kenyon, Popish Plot, p. 132 and p. 144.
5 LPTDI, l9Januaiy 1682.
6 Kenyon, op. cit., p. 265.
7 LPTDI, 19 January 1682.
41 allow space to this letter clearly showed that he supported a theory which exonerated Catholics
of responsibility for Godfrey's death.
Soon after, early in March, Thompson published two tracts, separately written by Catholic
lawyers named John Farwell and William Paine. They argued more explicitly and in greater
detail than 'EM' that Godfrey had killed himself, and that Green, Hill and Berry had been
unlawfully executed.' The Protestant press quickly responded to these 'impudent lies and
shams'2 with a series of pamphlets and articles which reaffirmed the established view that
Catholics had murdered Godfrey, and singled out Thompson for severe criticism. 3 Thompson
also received two menacing letters which ordered him to stop issuing his 'damn'd lying
forgeries' or else receive a 'good Drubbing'.4
However, of greater consequence to Thompson than ridicule and threats was the summons
from the Privy Council which led to his committal to Newgate on 5 April with Farwell and
Paine for 'Writing, Printing and Publishing Infamous and Seditious Libels; [and] Defaming the
Publick Justice of the Nation'.5 Although the three men were released just two days later, the
matter did not end there and they were brought to the King's Bench on 3 May to learn that
John Farwell, A Letter to Miles Prance, In Relation w the Murther of Sir Edmond-bury Godfrey (London, 1682); William Paine, A Second Letter To Mr Miles Prance, In Reply to the Ghost of Sir Edmond-bury Godfrey (London. 1682); LPTDI, 2, 7 and 14 March, 1682.
2 Sir Edmundbury Godfrys Ghost: Or, An Answer to Nat. Thompsons Scandalous Letter from Cambridge, to Mr. Miles Prance, in Relation to the Murder of Sir Edmundbu,y Godfrey (London, 1682), p. 6.
True Protestant Mercury, 1-4 and 4-8 March 1682; A Letter from Lucifer, To His Roman Agents N. T W. P. J. F. & R. L. Sir Edmond-bury Godfrey's Back-friends (London, 1682); More Work For The Popish Implements, Nat. Thompson and the Observator: Shewing How contradictory they are to themselves from what they were when the one published, and the other allowed this following Narrative of Sir Edmondbury Godfrey's Murder; which for the Satisfaction of all People we have here Verbatim Reprinted (London, 1682); Reflections Upon the Murder of S. Edmund-Bury Godfrey: The Design of Thompson, Farwell, and Paine, to sham off that Murder from the Papists: The late Endeavours to prove Stafford a Martyi and no Traitor: And The particular kindnesses of the Observator and Heraclitus to the whole Design. In a Dialogue. With a Dedication from Mrs Cellier (London, 1682); Sir Edmondbury Godfrey's Apparition to Nat. Thompson (London, 1682).
"Quotations from LPTDI, 18 and 25 March 1682 respectively.
Ibid., 8 April 1682. See ibid., I and 6 April 1682; An Account of the Proceedings Against Nat. Thompson, Mr Farwell, & Mr Paine, At The Councel-Board, On Wednesday, April the F(/ih, 1682. For their Endeavouring to Shamm off the Murther of Sir Edmund Bury-Godfrey, who were all Three Committed by that Honourable Board, to Newgate, for the same (London, 1682); Luttrell, Brief Historical Relation, 1, pp. 175-176; CSP Dom 1682, p. 135 and pp. 146-147; HMC, Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Ormonde. K. P. Preserved at Kilkenny Castle. New Series, Vol. VI (London, 1911), p. 356.
42 they would be prosecuted.' The trial eventually took place on 20 June and a record of the proceedings was made by the contemporary annalist, Narcissus Luttrell:
In the afternoon, at Guildhall, before the lord cheifjustice Pemberton, came on the tryall of Nathaniell Thompson, John Farwell, and William Pain, for writing, printing, and publishing two scandalous libells entituled Letters to Mr Miles Prance, insinuating that sir Edmondbury Godfrey killed himself, thereby defaming the justice of the whole nation; for which the defendants had this information exhibited against them, and had theretoo pleaded not guilty, and were now brought to triall for the same. Against them it was urged, the murther of sir Edmondberry Godfrey, the conviction of Green, Berry and Hill for the said murther; and Mr Prance gave also his testimony concerning the same: then the libells were produc'd, and were testified by some of the clerks of the coundill, that Thompson own'd the printing them, and Farwell and Pain the bringing of them to him, before the councill. In defence hereof Thompson and Pain had nothing to say, being not in court; but Farwell, being in custody, was brought thither by a tipstaffe, and called some witnesses to prove the probability of Godfrey's murthering himself; but they rather made against him, intimateing quite contrary: so that on the whole matter the lord cheifjustice left it very plain against the defendants; and so the jury, without goeing from the bar, brought them in all three guilty.2
Sentencing was adjourned until 3 July when Thompson, Farwell and Paine were ordered to
pay £100 apiece. Thompson and Farwell were also pilloried, much to the amusement of the
True Protestant Mercury 's reporter:
Westminster July the 5th 1682. This day from a 11 of the Clock to 12 in the Fore-Noone in the new Pallace-Yard, stood in the Pillory two Notorious Villans, Mr Thompson and John Farewell, to the satisfaction of all Loyal Subjects, Mr Goodenough (the under Sheriff) Commands all Spectators that they should throw no Stones nor other hard things, yet many People crying out, these are the two Rogues that Arraigned the Justice of the Nation, these are they that would have Shammed Sir E.B.G. Murther and the Plot, and would have laid it up on the Protestants, there's the Scribe, and there's the Printer pointing at them. Behold how like a couple of Jesuits they look, upon which the small Shot begun to fly, viz. Rotten-Eggs and Dirt, and when they hit Thompson, they cryed Thompson Farewell, and when they hit Farewell, they cryed Farewell Thompson; Thompson was observed.., to draw in his
LPTDI, 4 May 1682; Luttrell, Brief Historical Relation, I, p. 181.
2 Ibid., pp. 195-196. See LPTD!, 22 June 1682; The Most Remarkable Trials of Nathaniel Thompson, William Paine, John Farwell, At The Kings-Bench Bar in Guild-Hall, On the 2(/' of this Instant June, 1682 (London, 1682); The Tryal of Nathanael Thompson, John Farewell, William Pain, Before the Right Honourable Sir Fran. Pemberton Kt. Lord Chief Justice of England, by Nisi Prius. At Guild-Hall, London, the Twentieth of June, 1682. For Writing, and Publishing, Scandalous Letters to Mr. Miles Prance, in Relation to the Death of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey (London, 1682); The Tryal of Nathaniel Thompson, William Pain, and John Farwèll (London, 1682); The Tryal of Nathaniel Thompson, William Pain, and John Farwell. Upon an Information exhibited by the Kings Attorny General against them, for Writing, Printing and Publishing Libels, by way of Letters and other Prints, reflecting upon the Justice of the Nation, in the Proceedings against the Murderers of Sir Edmond-Bury Godfrey. At Guild-hal on Tuesday June the 20", 1682. Where after a full hearing they were Convicted. Together with an accompt of several Affidavits read in His Majesties Court of Kings Bench and other matters at the time of their receiving Sentence. To which is added by way of Appendix, Several other Affidavits which further confirm the Testimony of Mr. Prance, given upon the Tryal of Green, Berry and Hill about that Murder, with some Observations touching the said Thompson, Farwell and Pain (London, 1682).
43 Neck (whether from the smallness of it or bigness of the hole we know not) and bite the Pillory with his Teeth, as we have observ'd Rats to do in a Trap, but Farewell looked out stiffly untill an untoward Youth hit him with the But-end of a Rotten-Egg, which caus'd the Tears to run down on each side his Ears. As soone as the Pillory was lifted up, they both Jumpt down and run away, one in at the Leg in the Pallace-Yard and the other in at the Sun in King-Street, at both which places the People attended them for a second view, but their Gardians had made provision to let them out at the back doors. 'Tis further to be observ'd, that tho' it is hard to judg which is the greatest Villain of these two, yet the People had made this distinction of it, that Thompson had Ten times more Dirt thrown at him than Farewell, as appeared at the taking down of the Pillory.'
Thompson was unfortunately not able to pay his fine and, after being pilloried, was immediately remanded to Newgate where he remained until October when he paid his debt.2
During his imprisonment, Thompson ensured, with the help of family and friends, that his
Domestick Intelligence remained in circulation. It therefore must have been frustrating for him on regaining his liberty to receive an order from the government to suspend his news-sheet from 16 November.3 Thompson obeyed this instruction until 20 February 1683 when he renewed his Domestick Intelligence out of financial necessity. The journal remained in print for just one month and received a mixed reaction: 'As this Paper hath found a general acceptance with most Loyal and honest persons', Thompson acknowledged, 'so it hath not a little vex'd others, who finding their Hypocritical Shams laid open and discover'd, (which, according to my duty, I shall always endeavour to do) thereby, use their utmost endeavour to stifle or suppress it'.4 It did not take Thompson's enemies long to silence him, as he was sent to the Gatehouse on 20 March for printing 'false, scandalous and seditious' information. 5 This brush with the law persuaded Thompson to close his paper permanently. However, he
True Protestant Mercury, 5-8 July 1682. See LPTDI, 8 July 1682; The Sentence of Nathaniel Thompson, William Pain and John Farewel, Who Received Judgment at the Kings-Bench, Westminster; On the Third of this Instant July: As Having been Cast at Guild-Hall, for Writing, Printing, and Publishing The Letters & Libels, Purporting, That Sir Edrnundbury-Godfrey Murthered Himself (London. 1682); Trincalo Sainted: or the Exaltation of the Jesuits Implement, and Printer General, The Notorious Nathaniel Thomson, On this present 5" of July, 1682. The day of his being Registred among the Popish Saints, for his Meritorious Libel, Concerning the Murther of Sir EB. G. and Magnficantly and Numerously attended, to his Enthroning in the Pillory, for that purpose Erected in the Pa/lace- Yard in Westminster, for the Encouragement of Towzer and Heraclitus, to proceed till they obtain the like Exaitmeni (London, 1682); Luttrell, Brief Historical Relation, I, p.201 and p. 203.
2 Bodleian Library, Mss. Rawlinson, Dl8 f. 44 and f. 62; CSP Dom 1682, p. 511.
LPTDI, 16 November 1682; CSP Dom 1682, p. 545.
4 LPTDI, 1 March 1683.
PRO, PCR, 2/69/665, 28 March 1683.
44 continued his lone crusade against the enemies of Catholicism with a series of controversial tracts, and had firmly established himself as a major publisher and distributor of Catholic literature by the time of his death in November 1687.'
After the Domestick Intelligence ended, there was no English Catholic periodical press until
James II, formerly the Duke of York, ascended the throne on his brother's death in January
1685. The revival of the Catholic periodical press was brought about by Henry Hills, the son of a rope-maker from Maidstone in Kent. He had fought as a Parliamentarian in the Civil Wars and later served as official printer to Cromwell and Charles 11. Before 1685, Hills had a reputation as a zealous opponent of Catholicism, but he safeguarded his position on James Il's accession by becoming a Catholic. 2 Hills marked his conversion by publishing an almanac named the Kalendarium Catholicum towards the end of 1685. This was an updated version of
Thomas Blount's work and appeared like its predecessor 'wh[en] all people expected pop[er]y to be introduced'.3 Indeed, soon after the accession of James II, the position of Catholics in
England improved with the implementation of measures that pardoned prisoners convicted for nonconformity, ended the fining of recusants, and allowed them to take up appointments in the
universities and commissions in the army. 4 An effective form of episcopal government was
also established with Bishop John Leyburne's appointment by Rome as Vicar Apostolic and
head of the English mission.5 This was extended in 1688 when the country was subdivided into
the Northern, Western, Midland and London Districts, each governed by a Vicar Apostolic
'Peerbooms, Nathaniel Thompson, pp. 103 if.
2 For biographical information, see A view of part of the many Traiterous, Disloyal, and Turn-about Actions of !1.H. Senior, Sometimes Printer to Cromwel, to the Common-wealth, to the Anabaptist Congregation, to Cromwel 's Army, Committee of Safety, Rump-Parliament, &c. Printed for the Use of all those who do any ways believe the Real Conversion of H. H, (London, 1684); The Ljfe of H. Hills (Printer) With the Relation at large of what passed betwixt him and the Taylors Wife in Black-friars, according to the Original. As likewise particular Remarks on his Behaviour ever since. Which proves (the times change) him to be the same H.H. still (London, 1688); C'SP Dom 1690-1 691, p. 485; (ed.) E.S. De Beer, The Diary of John Evelyn 6 vols (Oxford, 1955), IV, p. 504; Miller, Popery and Politics, p. 256; J.M. Blom, The Post-Tridentine English Primer (London, 1982). pp. 69-70.
Quotation from hand-written notes on the title-page of the copy of the Kalendarium Catholicum For the Year 1686. held at the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
' Kenyon. Stuart Constitution, p. 453; Aveling, Handle and the Axe, p. 223; Miller, op. cit., p. 204 and p. 230. Leyburne was not the first Vicar Apostolic of England, as the office had previously been held by William Bishop (1623-1624) and Richard Smith (1625-1658).
45 who, acting essentially as a papal delegate, was invested with an episcopal authority in parlibus infidelium. In the light of these positive changes, it is not surprising therefore to find an appropriate celebratory motto from John, XVI, 20 printed on the frontispiece of the
Kalendarium Catholicum: 'Tristitia Vestra Vertetur En Gaudium'.'
The Kalendarium Cat holicum was issLied, albeit under different titles,2 with the King's approval another three years in succession. 3 Placed in context, it belonged to the major
Catholic literary revival between 1685 and 1688 when over four hundred Catholic titles were produced, of which approximately one-third came from Henry Hills' printing-house 'on the
Ditch-side in Black-Fryers'.4 Most of these titles, including Hills' annual almanac, were designed to attract converts by stating the principal doctrines and practices of Catholicism.
However, a substantial number of political works were released towards the end of this period to defend James li's Declaration of Indulgence of 4 April 1687, which suspended the anti- recusant penal laws and liberated public officials from the restrictive conditions imposed by the two Test Acts of 1673 and l678.
The effort to re-establish Catholicism in England was opposed by a predominantly anti-
Catholic nation. A measure of the strength of resistance faced by James 11 and his fellow
Catholics is evidenced in a contemporary catalogue listing over two hundred Protestant titles published between 1685 and 1688 in direct response to the Catholic threat. 6 Popular hostility was at first only kept in check because James II did not have a Catholic heir. Next in line to the succession was Mary, the King's eldest daughter from his first marriage, wife to Prince
William of Orange, and a confirmed Protestant like her husband, who, the public anticipated, would reverse her father's Catholic policies at his death. This certainly remained so until 10
Your sorrow is turned into joy'.
2 See below, p. 258.
CSP Dom 1686-1687, p. 13, p. 54 and p. 290. ' Clancy, English Catholic Books 1641-1 700, pp. 191-192 and p. 199.
Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, pp. 410-413; Miller, Popery and Politics, p. 244.
6 Edward Gee, The Catalogue Of all the Discourses Published Against Popery, During the Reign of King James II, By the Members of the Church of England, And b y the Non-conformists. With the Names of the Authors of them (London, 1689).
46 June 1688 when Queen Maria presented the King with a son, James Francis Edward, who was
baptised into the Catholic faith. This meant for Protestants the prospect of an indefinite rule by
a Catholic monarchy and demanded immediate drastic action.'
Accordingly, three weeks after the Prince of Wales was born, a clique of politicians asked
William and Mary to take the throne. This invitation was readily accepted and the couple
landed at Torbay on 5 November. Reaching London five weeks later, they forced James H to
flee to France, an event marked by an outburst of violence against Catholic chapels, schools
and households. Among those targeted was Henry Hills whose property had been attacked on
12 November. On that occasion, Hills received protection from the King who placed a guard
around his home; this was ordered to remain for as long as the 'rabble continue their
insolencies'.2 But in December, Hills was again exposed to the fury of a mob which 'destroy'd
[his] Printing-House, spoil'd his Forms, Letters, &c. and burnt 2 or 300 Reams of Paper,
printed and unprinted'. 3 Before this destruction, Hills fortunately published the 1689 issue of
his Catholic almanac which was probably the last title that he printed before he followed his
King and escaped to France.
Hills died within weeks of reaching St Omer and certainly before 21 January 1689, the date on
which his will was proved.4 With his death, the earliest stage in the history of the English
Catholic periodical press ended abruptly. In the forty years since Humphrey Peyto wrote the
Mercurius Catholicus, the Catholic periodical press had been obstructed by public displays of
No Popery, stringent censorship measures and harsh anti-Catholic laws. Throughout this
period, however, Catholics had had some reason to hope that their status would improve, and
their few periodicals were designed essentially to promote their cause. But all hope seemed to
vanish with the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688, and without hope and a sense of purpose there
Miller, Popery and Politics, pp. 198-202; Aveling, Handle and the Axe, pp. 235-239; Coward, Stuart Age. pp. 341 if.
2 CSP Dom 168 7-1 689, p. 348.
The English Currant, I 2-14 December I 688.
' CSP Dom 1690-1691, p. 485; Henry R. Plomer, A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers Who Were at Work in England, Scotland and Ireland From /668 to 1725 (Oxford, 1922), p. 153; Blom, Post- Tridentine English Primer, p. 70.
47 was little prospect that the English Catholic community would ever again have its own periodical press.
48 Chapter Two
Revival (1689-18 13)
The traditional view of the English Catholic community after the 'Glorious Revolution' of
1688 was crystallised in John Henry Newman's 'Second Spring' sermon in 1852. Beleaguered and beaten, Newman said, English Catholics became a politically inactive, socially insignificant and culturally unenlightened gens lucjfuga who were 'dimly seen as if through a mist or in twilight, as ghosts flitting to and fro, by the high Protestants, the lords of the earth'.'
They had suffered terminal decline, he continued, dwindling to a 'mere handful of individuals, who might be counted, like the pebbles and detritus of the great deluge'. 2 This claim was not new: in 1780, Joseph Berington 3 observed that 'within the present century we have most rapidly decreased', and he blamed this on 'the loss of families by death, or by conforming to the established Church; the marrying with Protestants; and that general indifference about religion, which gains so perceptibly on all ranks of Christians'. 4 Support for Berington and
Newman's bleak version of early modem Catholic history came in 1909 when Edwin Burton wrote that the English Catholic community entered a 'dark and depressing epoch' in December
1688: after James II was deposed, the few remaining Catholics in the country retreated to the safety of the 'catacombs' where they stayed until the Catholic Relief Acts were passed late in the eighteenth century. Burton thought that the period after the 'Glorious Revolution' was important only because it linked the Catholic martyrs of the seventeenth century with the nineteenth-century Catholic emancipators.5
'John Henry Newman, The Second Spring: A Sermon Preached in the Synod of Oscott, On Tuesday, July l3, 1852 (London, 1852), p. 18.
2 lbid.,pp. 16-17.
See below, p. 56.
Joseph Berington, The State and Behaviour of English Catholics, From the Reformation to the Year 1780. With a View ofthefr Present Number, Wealth, Character, &c. (London, 1780), p. 116.
Edwin 1-1. Burton, The L(fe and Times of Bishop C/ia/loner (1691 .478/) 2 vols (London, 1909), 1, p. xvii.
49 This picture of a depressed and persecuted body has been challenged by more recent historians. According to John Bossy, the English Catholic community showed a tendency not to decline, as Berington, Newman and Burton said, but rather to grow: between 1641 and
1770, he argues, the number of Catholics in England increased steadily from sixty thousand to eighty thousand.' This should not have been possible, Cohn Haydon writes, because of the anti-Catholic penal code introduced after the 'Glorious Revolution'. The most severe measure was William Ill's 'Act for the further preventing the growth of popery' of 1700: it made
Catholic worship illegal, with life imprisonment as the penalty for a priest caught saying mass, and conversion to Catholicism an offence; it forbade Catholics to educate their children abroad; it stated that they had to swear the oath of allegiance and declaration prescribed by the second Test Act or else forfeit their property; it disqualified Catholics from buying real estate, and ordered them to pay twice as much land tax as their Protestant neighbours. This should have killed Catholicism in England, by breaking what remained and ensuring that new members could not be recruited. But, 1-laydon argues, the anti-Catholic laws became a dead letter, and apart from the rare display of No Popery, Catholics were largely left unmolested.2
A sign that the English Catholic Church survived the 'Glorious Revolution' was the speed with which its press became active again. Just a few years after Henry Hills left England, his position as leading Catholic printer and publisher was taken over by Thomas Metcalfe of
Drury Lane. Metcalfe probably began his career in 1695 when censorship measures and licensing laws based on the Printing Act of l662 and introduced in 1689 expired. However, this did not mean that Catholics were now allowed free access to the press: on 11 August 1697,
Metcalfe was arrested for printing 'several popish and seditious books and pamphlets'. 4 These included The Constitutions of Innocent, a 'pamphlet of two sheets, in Latine, concerning a project of some of our Clergy to live in Common, that thereby they might be helpfull to Such
Bossy, English Catholic Community, pp. 185-189.
2 Cohn Haydon, Anti-Catholicism in Eighteenth-Century England, c. I 714-80. A Political and Social Study (Manchester, 1993), PP. 47-48.
See above, p. 22.
4 CSPDom /697, p. 301.
50 of our Communion who are in want'.' Metcalfe was brought before the Privy Council on 19
August: 'He said he had the copy from one Gerald, who used to come to his shop, but did not
know what he was or where he lived. He bespoke 100 to be printed for private use'. 2 The case
was presumably dismissed as nothing else was recorded of the matter, and for this Metcalfe
had John Dryden to thank. He had acted on Metcalfe's behalf, urging the Secretary of State,
Sir William Trumbull, to be lenient and pointing out that Metcalfe was a 'Young man & this
his first offence, as, I hope, it will be his last'. 3 Metcalfe did not have another brush with the authorities and the only other official reference to him is in the 1706 returns of Catholics in
London,4 which leads C.J. Mitchell to describe Metcalfe as a 'reluctant salesman'.5
The same, however, cannot be said about Thomas Meighan who succeeded Metcalfe in
business some time between 1711 and 1715. During the first half of the eighteenth century,
Meighan was the most important and prolific publisher of Catholic literature and, as Joseph
Gillow wrote, he was the 'father of the modem Catholic bookselling trade in England'. 6 His proactive approach to business was not indicative of a people supposedly confined to the catacombs: he regularly advertised his wares in public and was not afraid to allow the phrase
'sold by Thomas Meighan' to appear in imprints in Catholic works. 7 Of course, this publicity
brought Meighan to the attention of a government trying to restrict the trade in recusant
literature. In 1715, the year of the Jacobite uprising, it ordered that all his mail be intercepted and read, although nothing incriminating was found. 8 The authorities, however, kept patient watch on Meighan and he was arrested in 726 for publishing England's Conversion, a
1 John Dryden to Sir William Trumbull, 18 August 1697, in (ed.) Charles E. Ward, The Letters of John Dryden (Durham, North Carolina, 1942), p. 91.
2 CSPDom 1697, p.318.
Dryden to Trumbull, 18 August 1697, in (ed.) Ward, op. cit., p. 92.
Blom, Post-Tridentine English Primer, p. 71.
C.J. Mitchell. 'Thomas Meighan: Notes on the Father of Catholic Bookselling in England', Publishing History: The Social, Economic and Literary History of Book, Newspaper and Magazine Publishing, X, 1981, p. 51.
6 Gil/ow, IV. p. 558.
Mitchell, op. cit., pp. 5 1-52.
PRO, SP, 44/118/345, 13 September 1715.
51 'certain seditious & impious Book" by the leading Catholic controversialist, Robert Manning,2 and again in October 1737 for taking subscriptions for Richard Challoner's The Catholick
Christian instructed.3
It is not known if or how Meighan was punished on both occasions, but he was not discouraged from publishing and selling Catholic literature. En December 1745, after another failed Jacobite rebellion, a government informer reported that lies, a Catholic printer in Wield
Street, was responsible for many treasonable pamphlets and was 'constantly imploy'd by one
Mayan a Papist and noted Bookseller in Drury Lane, whose shop (it is said) is daily frequented by the most wealthy Papists, Priests in particular'.4 No action was taken by the authorities until
January 1747 when Meighan was arrested after another informant said that he had bought 'art
Mr Mean's in Drury Lane' copies of speeches made by Jacobites executed late in 1746.
Meighan was examined on 15 January: he said that he had not read the two tracts, except for the preface to one of them which he judged to be 'written for the Government', and claimed to have no knowledge of 'who sent either oi'the same to the press, or who printed either of them: that he never heard, nor can he suspect who were concerned in the printing thereof, but he did promise that he would discover this information for the authorities if they set him free.6
Meighan's offer was not accepted, and it is known that late in 1747 he was still in prison where he preached to his fellow inmates, persuading one, George Hay,' a Protestant medical student
from Edinburgh, to convert to Catholicism. Hay was ordained priest in 1758; twenty years
later he was made Vicar Apostolic of the Lowland District in Scotland.7
'PRO, SP, 44/81/419, Charles Townshend to John Turner and George Gordon, 19 January 1726.
2 C.J. Mitchell, 'Robert Manning and Thomas Howlatt: English Catholic Printing in the Early Eighteenth Century', RH, XVII, May 1984, pp. 38-47.
3.PRO, SP, 44/82/161, 'Warrt. for apprehending Tho. Meighan', 7 October 1737.
"Ibid., 36/77/51, Thomas Wells to the Duke of Newcastle, 14 December 1745.
Ibid., 36/93/170-172, 'The Information upon Oath of Charles Glover Waterman to the Earl of Holderness', 15 January 1747.
6 Ibid.. 36/93/162-165, 'The Examination of Thomas Meighan the Elder Bookseller of Drury Lane', 15 January 1747.
Thomas Wall, The Sign of Doctor Hay's Head: Being Some Account of the Hazards and Fortunes of Catholic Printers and Publishers in Dublin From the Later Penal Times to the Present Day (Dublin, 1958), p. 2.
52 One of Meighan's most important titles was an annual calendar called the Ordo Recitandi
OjjIcii Divine et Misse Celebrande, the first English Catholic periodical since Hills'
Calendariu,n Catholicum for 1689. There is some uncertainty as to when precisely the Ordo
appeared. The earliest issue known to exist is dated 1722, the only known surviving copy of
which is held at the Westminster Archdiocesan Archives. However, Mary Leys claimed to
have seen a privately-owned copy of the Ordo which had been published about 1714 by
Meighan.' The Ordo contained information identical to that found in the almanacs issued the
previous century, but it differed fundamentally because, printed throughout in Latin, it was
designed exclusively for clerical use ana was therefore a potent symbol of resistance to that
part of the Act against Popery of 1700 which made priests liable to life imprisonment for
exercising their spiritual and missionary functions. This strategy of challenging authority set
Meighan apart from those who had guided the Catholic periodical press in the seventeenth
century: Peyto, Blount, Thompson and Hills had all supported and colluded with the civil
authority; Meighan, on the other hand, was not a friend of government and, according to one
contemporary, encouraged 'every insolent reflection he thinks will be acceptable to the
disaffected' 2
The idea of a vernacular version of the Ordo was not conceived until 1758, five years after
Meighan's death, when James Marmaduke, a Catholic publisher and bookseller since about
l741, first produced the Laity's Directory. From the time that Herbert Thurston wrote 'An
Old-Established Periodical', his article on the Laity's Directory, it has been accepted that, in
translating the Ordo, Marmaduke breached the copyright to a title which then belonged to a
Catholic bookbinder and printer named James Peter Coghlan. 4 This version of events,
Leys, Catholics in England, p. 181.
2 PRO. SP, 36/77/51, Wells to Newcastle, 14 December 1745.
' Gillow, IV, pp. 462-463.
' Joseph Gillow, The Haydock Papers: A 'Glimpse Into English Catholic L/fe Under the Shade of Persecution and in the Dawn of Freedom (London, 1888), p. 84; Gillow, IV, p. 463; Leys, op. cit., p. 182: B.C. Foley, Some People of the Penal Times (Chiefly 1688-1 791) (Lancaster, 1991), pp. 14-15. Coghlan was born in 1731. He was apprenticed in 1746 to the bookbinder Samuel Cope. Coghlan's indentures were completed in 1754, the year in which he set up a shop which sold stationery and books (Howard M. Nixon, 'The Memorandum Book of James Coghlan: The Stock of an I 8"-Century Printer and Binder', Journal of the Printing Historical Society, VI, 1970, p. 33).
53 however, is wrong because, after Meighan died in December 1753, the responsibility of publishing the Ordo was at first taken on by his wife Martha, before Marmaduke acquired the work for himself in 1755,1 and it was not until 1773 that Coghian began compiling his own
Ordo.2 Contrary to Thurston, therefore, it should be said that, when Coghlan founded his own series of the Laity's Directory in I 763, he acted not out of vengeance for some wrongdoing by Marmaduke, but rather because he saw a real opportunity to capitalise on the original publication's success in much the same way that Nathaniel Thompson had taken advantage of
Benjamin Harris in 1679.
The two versions of the Laity's Directory could be easily distinguished despite the shared title.
Marmaduke's contained sections of a supplement called 'Acts of the Martyrs'; Coghlan's regularly featured an address, 'A New Year's Gift', from the Vicar Apostolic of the London
District, confirming the claim that his Laity's Directory had episcopal approval: the phrase 'By
Permission, and with Approbation' was constantly featured on the title-page of Coghlan's periodical. 5 This was exploited by Coghlan who publicly disparaged Marmaduke for not having an official licence. Marmaduke replied in the preface to the 1765 issue of his Laity's
Directory, accusing Coghlan of spreading 'false reports' in an unprovoked attempt to 'crush and stifle' him. Coghlan, however, was not moved and continued to try to discredit
Marmaduke, eventually forcing him to make the following announcement late in 1773:
The Public finding the great utility of such a Directory, the Publisher of this, being the original contriver of it, had great reason to expect their encouragement of his, as a gratitude due to every promoter of a common good; for if he had not thought of it, they perhaps would not have had one to this day... But on the contrary, having long lain under a great deal of ill treatment, by reason of maintaining his property of this Directory, and his innocency of what is industriously laid to his charge, and finding no other means to rescue himself from thence, consistent with christian liberty, he now proposes to sell off his stock in trade at a very low rate.6
'(eds.) F. Blom, J. Blom, F. Korsten and G. Scott, English Catholic Books 1 701-1800: A Bibliography (Hants., 1996), p. 229.
2 Ibid., p.231.
3 lbid.,p. 166.
"See above, p. 28 and pp. 3 1-32.
Burton. Life and Times of Bishop Challoner, II, p. 97 and pp. 337-338.
'[Janies Marmaduke], Laity's Directory (1774).
54 Marmaduke remained uninvolved in Catholic periodical publishing until 1780 when, claiming priority over Coghlan, he began the Original Laity's Directory which had on its last page a quotation clearly directed at Coghlan: 'Authority is a term unintelligible'. The Original Laity's
Directory was published every year until Marmaduke's death in 1788.'
The leaders of the English Catholic community were then preparing to engage in a struggle for deliverance from existing anti-Catholic laws. Catholics had been freed from the legal disabilities of William Ill's Act against Popery which was repealed by the first Relief Act of
1778: now they could buy land lawfully and priests no longer had the threat of life imprisonment hanging over them. However, this legislation was very limited: government and military offices remained closed to Catholics, and they were not allowed entry to Oxford
University nor were they able to take degrees at Cambridge; they could still not vote and were liable in theory to prosecution for not attending the services of the Established Church. 2 It was only with the passage of the second Relief Act in June 1791 that English Catholics were given the freedom to practise their faith on licensed premises without fear of punishment.3
In the struggle for the Relief Act of 1791, two groups of Catholics emerged. 4 The first was the
Cisalpine party: it was represented by the Catholic Committee, a small organisation established in 1782 and led since 1786 by its Secretary, Charles Butler, the leading Catholic lawyer of his age.5 It boasted among its membership representatives of some of the oldest and most distinguished Catholic families, the Petres, Stourtons, and Throckmortons, and priests like
Joseph Berington, the historian and controversialist, who was 'the most extreme, as he was the
(eds.) Blom et al., English Catholic Books 1701-1800, pp. 168-169.
2 Nigel Abercrombie, 'The First Relief Act', in (ed.) Eamon Duf1,', Challoner and His Church: A Catholic Bishop in Georgian England (London, 1981), pp. 174-193.
Bernard Ward, The Dawn of the Catholic Revival in England, 1781-1803 2 vols (London, 1909), 1, pp. 298-301.
"The clearest account of this period of English Catholic history is given in two essays by Eamon Duffy: 'Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: 1(1779-1787)', RH, X, January 1970, pp. 193-209; 'Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: 11(1787-1796)', RH, X, October 1970, pp. 309-33 1.
Butler was born in 1750 and educated at Douay. He returned to England about 1766 and began studying law, entering Lincoln's Inn in 1775. Butler established himself as a successful conveyancer, but was not called to the Bar until 1791 when the Relief Act removed the need for barristers to take the oath of supremacy and declare against Transubstantiation. He died in June 1832. See Gillow, 1, pp. 355-364.
55 most learned, of the Cisalpines'.' The Catholic Committee's religio-political agenda was defined by its ecumenical and eirenic spirit. This was strategically placed to persuade the
English public that Catholics were seeking full social integration and did not stand, to use
Sheridan GlUey's words, 'four square on Peter's rock against the protestant world'. 2 To realise their objectives, the Cisalpines understated the strength of Catholicism, as in Berington's State and Behaviour of English Catholics,3 and sacrificed those devotional and ecciesiological elements in the faith deemed to be offensive or threatening to the Protestant sensibility: 'If
English Catholics could be seen to be British, root and branch, neither priest-ridden nor pope- ridden, emancipation would come that much sooner'. 4 Their major concession related to
Rome's authority over English Catholics, as exemplified by the oath of allegiance formulated by Butler during the Catholic Committee's negotiations with the government for relief. First published in Woodfall's Register on 26 June 1789, this radically proposed that Jurors repudiate papal infallibility and deny the Pope's power to depose kings and absolve subjects from loyalty to the civil authority; it also labelled those Catholics who swore the oath as
'Protesting Catholic Dissenters', distinguishing them from papist Non-Jurors to whom the benefits of relief would be closed.5
This readiness to compromise religion for socio-political advantage was resisted, however, by
orthodox advocates of unconditional emancipation, led by the Vicars Apostolic. The
Duffy, 'Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected:-!', p. 194. Berington was born in 1743 and belonged to an old aristocratic Catholic family from Herefordshire. In 1771, as Professor of Theology at Douay, he caused a stir with his 'Theses cx Logica et Psychologia'. Berington returned to England after ordination in 1772, but did not begin his missionary work until 1775 when he served at Wolverhampton, before moving to Carlton in Yorkshire the following year. In 1785, he took control of the mission at Oscott in the Midland District and stayed there until 1793. Sir John Throckmorton then made Berington his chaplain at Buckland where he remained until his death in December 1827. See Gillow, 1. pp. 189-199; John Kirk, Biographies of English Catholics in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1909), pp. 17-20; Eamon DutTy, 'Joseph Berington and the English Catholic Cisalpine Movement, 1772-1803', Ph.D. Thesis (University of Cambridge, 1973).
2 Sheridan Gilley, 'John Lingard and the Catholic Revival', Studies in Church History, XIV, 1977, p. 315.
See above. p. 49.
Earnon Duffy, 'Doctor Douglass and Mister Berington - An Eighteenth-Century Retraction', The Downside Review, LXXXVIII. July 1970, p. 249.
Ward. Dawn of the Catholic Revival, I, pp. 158-163: Marie Rowlands, 'The Staffordshire Clergy, 1688-1803', RH, IX, April 1968. p. 228; Duffy, 'Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: II', pp. 312-315.
56 Ultramontane party was opposed to lay interference in ecclesiastical matters and upheld the
existing hierarchical and clenco-centric structure of the Catholic Church in England, founded
on a filial relationship with Rome. Its most extreme representative was John Mimer.' Born in
1752, the son of a London tailor, Mimer was educated at Douay, ordained priest in 1777, and
from 1779 served the mission at Winchester. He first came to public prominence during the
debate for Catholic relief in 1790 'ihen he established himself as the brusque and
uncompromising opponent of the Cisalpines. His main achievement at this time was to lobby
Parliament on behalf of the Vicars Apostolic of the Northern, Western and London Districts to
discard Butler's oath from the Relief Bill. Mimer wanted to preserve the pyramidal structure of
the Roman Catholic Church, where the papacy ruled the bishops, the bishops ruled the clergy
and the clergy ruled the laity. In his determination to ensure this structure was maintained, and
to uproot the 'poisonous weeds of dissension' cultivated by the Catholic Committee, Mimer
happily indulged in radical controversy.2 He deemed it necessary to combat publicly any
heterodox position through words and actions, even at the expense of communal concord. ThE
greater evil, Milner explained, was to Ignore the internal propagation of error merely to
preserve harmony within the Catholic body. He was, as Sheridan Gilley writes, a 'writer,
fighter and biter' in the truest sense.3
The late eighteenth-century English Catholic community, harbouring an irascible figure like
Milner who stood in diametric opposition to the likes of Berington and Butler, was riven in
two, polarised by the struggle between Ultramontanes and Cisalpines. The most potent weapon
in this battle was the printed word. Polemical literature was the principal tool used to sustain
an internecine war. It enabled the extreme positions of both parties to be defined effectively
and irrevocably, as exemplified by the literary debate which attended the Catholic
For Mimer, see Frederick Charles Husenbeth, The Life of the Right Rev. John Mimer D.D. (Dublin, 1862); Gil/ow, V, pp. 15-53; M.N.L. Couve de Murville, John Mimer (Birmingham, 1986).
2 John Mimer, Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: Being a Review of the Controversy Between the Layman and the Clergyman Concerning the Appointment of Bishops, and of Other Matters Contained in the Publications of Sir John Throckmorton, Ban. (London, 1793), p. ii.
Sheridan Gilley, 'The Roman Catholic Church in England, 1780-1940', in (eds.) Sheridan Gilley and W.J. She us, A History of Religion in Britain: Practice and Belieffrom Pre-Roman Times to the Present (Oxford, 1994), p. 349.
57 Committee's attempt to promote favourable candidates to the London and Northern vicariates, both of which had been left vacant early in 1790 after the deaths of Bishop James Talbot and
Bishop Matthew Gibson. One prominent Cisalpine and Committee-man, Sir John
Throckmorton,' writing anonymously as 'A Layman', published a treatise which highlighted that the institution of the Vicar Apostolic was relatively modem, and certainly unknown in the
Church before the twelfth century. 2 Throckmorton controversially continued his tract by dismissing the current Vicars Apostolic as 'foreign emissaries' of a 'foreign Prelate', 3 who, endowed with a mere titular authority over ancient sees, were 'not only Pastors without a flock, but Bishops without the power of the Keys'. 4 In place of the Vicars Apostolic,
Throckmorton advocated the establishment of a regular hierarchy through the appointment of
'proper Pastors', or bishops-in-ordinary, to be chosen not by Rome, but by the English
Catholic clergy and laity. 5 This suggestion, however, provoked an immediate reaction from three Ultramontane priests: William Pilling, a Franciscan and former Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Douay,6 Charles Plowden, Jesuit chaplain to the Weld family at Lulworth
Castle,7 and Joseph Strickland, missioner at Stonor in Oxfordshire. 8 But the most sustained and zealous defence of the traditional integrity and identity of English Catholicism came from
Mimer: in three separate tracts against Throckmorton, he urged that the Church's unity in faith,
1 Born in July 1753; educated at Douay; died January 1819. See Gil/ow, V, p. 542.
2 A Letter Addressed to the Catholic Clergy of England on the Appointment of Bishops. By a Layman (London, 1790), pp. 10-11.
3 lbid.. p. 13.
4 Thid..p. II.
5 /bid., p. 13.
6 A Dialogue Between a Protesting Catholic Dissenter, and a Catholic; on the Nature, Tendency and Import, of the Oath Lately Offered to the Catholics of England (London, 1790).
Considerations on the Modern Opinion of the Fallibility of the Holy See in the Decision of Dogmatical Questions. Wi/h an Appendix on the Appointment of Bishops (London, 1790). Plowden was born in 1743. Educated at St Omer's, Liege and Bologna, he was ordained in 1770. His appointment to Lulworth Castle was made in 1784 and he became Provincial of the English Jesuits in 1817. Plowden died in 1821. See Gillow, V. pp. 322-325.
8 Remarks Upon a Letter Addressed By a Layman to the Catholic Clergy of England on the Appointment of Bishops (London, 1790).
58 discipline and government be preserved and entrusted to the absolute authority of bishops
chosen by the Holy See.'
This literary scrap made only a small contribution to the flurry of pamphlets and books which
the Cisalpines and Ultramontanes produced in the last decade of the eighteenth century.
However, it showed the limitations of Catholic publishing, monopolised as it was by a clique
of authors representing the extremes of Cisalpinism and Ultramontanism. Although leading
figures in the Catholic community had ready access to the printing press, the Catholic public
did not have a regularly-produced paper that it could claim as its own, and it had not had this
for over a century, since Nathaniel Thompson had last published his Domestick Intelligence.
This does not mean that no Catholic had made a living from journalism since Thompson. In
1723, the government took a census of newspapers published in London, together with a
statement of their religious and political affiliations, and four editors replied that they favoured
Roman Catholicism.2 There is also the case of Captain John Stevens. 3 Born around 1662 and educated at Douay, Stevens was an established travel writer and historian whose open profession of Catholicism and support for the Jacobite cause did not hinder his journalistic career. From July 1712 to July 1715, he edited the British Mercury, a weekly digest of domestic and foreign intelligence which had been established in 1710 by the Sun Fire Office as a means of gaining new insurance policy-holders. The British Mercury, however, was not a political or religious journal, as Stevens clarified: 'It is not here design'd to further any Party, or to reflect upon any Faction; nothing of High or Low, Whig or Tory, is ever to find place in this Paper; neither Church man nor Dissenter, nay not so much as the Moral Mahometan, Jew or Heathen shall be invidiously pointed a't'.4
The Clergyman 's Answer to the Layman 's Letter, on the Appointment of Bishops (London, 1790); The Divine Right of Episcopacy Addressed to the Catholic Laity of England, in Answer to the Layman's Second Letter to the Catholic Clergy of England; With Remarks on the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance (London, 1791); Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected.
2 Siebert, Freedom of the Press, pp. 318-319.
Martin Murphy, 'A Jacobite Antiquary in Grub Street: Captain John Stevens (c.1662-1726)', RH, XXIV, October 1999, pp. 437-454.
Cited ibid., p. 444.
59 The need for more frequent information than occasional pamphlets or the Ordo and Laity's
Directory could provide was recognised by Coghlan as early as December 1774 when he told
Bishop George Hay of his idea to establish the Westminster Gazette, to which Hay gave his conditional support:
As for the Scheme of your Westminster Gazette [it is] very plausible, and [I] hope the Gentleman you employ as your Translator of foreign Intelligence, will be really a Man of parts & Master of the English Language, for the Success of your Work will depend much upon his Conduct; I am not acquainted with any foreign papers, as I never see any of them here, so cannot say which would be fittest for you. As for joining in the Proprietorship I would be most willing, were it only to assist you, but I should imagine you would have more offerers than you have occasion for, as the Share is so small; however I approve your Desire of keeping it among particular friends & suppose you have proposed it to Mr. [Richard] Cha[l]loner [Vicar Apostolic of the London District] and Mr. [Thomas] Talbot [Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District], if either of them has a Share, I shall take one too, tho' it will be a little inconvenient for me to raise the money, but I shall do my best to provide it. Pray let me know if the proprietors will be entituled to have the paper sent them gratis. Or must they pay for it equally as others do? If they have a paper sent them gratis I shall become a proprietor whether the above Gentlemen be so or not, & would wish to know who are already Proprietors.'
But the plan to publish the Westminster Gazette was soon dropped and it would seem that the main problem was financial. Every government since 1710 had regulated the press by levying taxes on the publishers of newspapers who were ordered to register their publications at the
Stamp Office.2 When Coghlan suggested establishing the Westminster Gazette, the rate of tax was between one pence and two pence per copy, depending on the number of pages. 3 This extra cost might have stopped Coghlan from implementing a scheme which was not revived until May 1785 when he wrote to Hay:
I think next Winter to publish a Periodical Work - Either addressd to or to call it the Roman Catholick. My reason is that our opponants will not read our Books or long works; a short paper might be read - they understand but little of us & our own People are as ignorant frequently of what they should know - In short, my mind is not greatly made up to form a plan but when I have [I] will communicate it to you - I propose however to ask everyones assistance who can writ - Each to Chuse [a] letter of the alphabets - only to
LRO, BUI4, CP, 13, George Hay to James Peter Coghlan, 5 December 1774. 1 am grateful to Reverend Dr Geoffrey Scott O.S.B. for sending me copies of some of the Coghlan Papers held at the Lancashire Record Office.
2 Siebert, Freedom of ihe Press, pp. 308 if.
Ibid.. p. 321. -
60 be known to myself who they are - but 2 or 3 to be chosen here to inspect & revise to prevent anything against orthodox ity.'
Coghlan asked Hay for his help in developing the project, but, like the Westminster Gazette, it
was deemed impractical and hence taken no further. Coghlan again might have been deterred
by the requirement to pay stamp tax which had risen to between one-and-a-half pence to two-
and-a-half pence for every copy of a newspaper. 2 Alternatively, he might have been concerned
about the Protestant reaction to an openly Catholic journal; it had, after all, been only five
years since the Gordon Riots.
Coghian compensated for his inability to establish a more frequent periodical by expanding the
Laity's Directory so that it functioned during the last decade of the eighteenth century as a
Catholic newsletter, conveying information which had been kept secret in less liberal times.
Lists of chapels and priests were printed and alongside advertisements for products sold by
Coghlan, including Jesuits' Nervous Pills ('calculated to prevent and extirpate every disorder
of the nerves'), there were notices for Catholic schools. These did not please everyone: Roberf
Banister, chaplain to the Westby family at Mowbreck Hall, near Kirkham in Lancashire,3
complained in March 1795 that he was 'sick in reading at the end of the new Directory the
puffs that are so copiously announced by every school or academy... boasting to teach every
art and science: grammar, rhetoric, painting, wrestling, fortune-telling, magic, &c', and
considered writing for the next Laity's Directory a spoof advert for an academy that would
teach boys to be 'ignorantly learned and learnedly ignorant'.4
Occasional papers on political topics directly about Catholicism in England also became a staple feature of the Laity's Directory. The number for 1792 featured an essay on the recent
Relief Act, while the 1793 issue had a companion piece on anti-Catholic legislation that still
'Scottish Catholic Archives, Hay Papers, BL3/434/5, Coghlan to Hay, 25 May 1785.
2 Siebert, Freedom of tile Press, p. 322. Born in 1725, Banister was ordained at Douay in 1750 and taught there until 1769 when he returned to England to work in the Northern District. He joined the Westbys In 1774, after a brief spell as Vice- President of Douay, and remained with them until 1803. Banister was then transferred to Dodding Green where he died in 1812. See Gillow, 1, pp. 122-125. Robert Banister to Henry Rutter, 13 March 1795, in (ed.) Leo Gooch, The Revival of English Catholicism: The Banister-R utter Correspondence 1777-1807 (Wigan, 1995), pp. 238-239.
61 remained on the statute book. The periodical even conveyed foreign intelligence, as in the issue for 1796 which contained Milner'saccount of the growth of Catholicism in the Far East.
This article profoundly affected Banister, showing him how the 'Christian Catholic faith spreads its rays on all sides, amidst the temporary persecutions it sustains with a primitive constancy and magnanimity', and revealing 'an amazing contrast between the Catholics of those countries and of our own, who although they be instructed in the Catholic faith from their infancy and upwards to 14 or 15 years of age, yet often either abandon it totally, or much oftener live the life of pagans'.'
The Laity's Directory gave a special space to obituary notices which Coghlan considered an essential means of 'contributing to the eternal peace' of dead Catholics. 2 In 1794, he published a list of nearly two hundred priests who had died in Great Britain between November 1779 and
October 1793, as well as the names of seventy-four French émigré clergy who had died in
England since September 1792. The French Revolution forced seven thousand priests and religious, and thousands more lay Catholics, to flee across the Channel. 3 Most fled after
November 1791 when the governing body in France, the Constituent Assembly, ordered all priests and religious who opposed the schismatical Civic Oath of the Civil Constitution of the
Clergy to leave the country. Those clergy and members of communities who rejected the Civic
Oath and refused to go were persecuted, suffering imprisonment and even execution in what became known as 'The Terror'.4
English Catholic communities based on the continent only came under threat after February
1793 when war between England and France was declared. The English communities established in France and the Low Countries in the sixteenth century were quickly broken up.
In the case of the English College at Douay, its students and professors were imprisoned in
October 1793 and not released until the spring of 1795. After returning to England, they set up
Banister to Rutter, 23 November 1796, in (ed.) Gooch, Revival of English Catholicism. p. 269.
2 Laity's Directory (1789).
Gilley, Roman Catholic Church in England', p. 349.
' Foley, Some People of the Penal Times, pp..l 8-19.
62 three new colleges: St Edmund's at Ware in the London District, Oscott in the Midland
District and Crook Hall, later Ushaw, at Durham in the Northern District.' These became
breeding-grounds for editors of, and contributors to, Catholic periodicals established early in
the nineteenth century. The papers held at the Lancashire Record Office in Preston show that
Coghian helped repatriate many of those in danger by arranging their transport, negotiating
with treasury and customs officials, and finding them temporary and permanent
accommodation.2 Coghian had a particular personal interest in what was happening abroad: his
two daughters were nuns in the order of the Poor Clares at Aire in Artois, and when their
property was confiscated and they were expelled, he organised their safe return to England in
September 1799 with the help of Butler, Milner and Sir John Coxe Hippisley, a prominent
Protestant campaigner for Catholic emancipation.3
Despite Coghlan's expansion of the Laity's Directory, as an annual publication it remained an
inadequate forum for regular debate. Catholics therefore had to use a secular periodical to
engage in discussion with fellow Catholics and Protestants. A precedent had been set early in
1787 when Sir John Throckmorton submitted to the Gentleman's Magazine, the first and most
influential monthly periodical which had been in continuous existence since 1731, a series of
thirty-seven propositions taken from an anonymous tract of 1680 called Roman Catholick
Principles in Reference to God and the King. 4 Designed to exonerate Catholics from Titus
Oates' claims that they were conspiring to depose Charles II and bring the country under the
control of the Jesuits, this treatise had tried to correct the attendant misrepresentation of
Catholics as traitorous followers of a foreign and idolatrous religion. It thus furnished
Protestants with a conciliatory exposition of English Catholicism in which the papal claim to
'Ward, Dawn of the Catholic Revival, [1, pp. 69-114.
2 LRO, 8U14, CP, 37, John Greenway to Coghlan, 11 September 1794; 50, Coghlan to Charles Long, 21 September 1796; 91, Paul Macpherson to Coghlan, 22 March 1798.
Ibid., 71, John Milner to Coghlan, 1799; 127 and 132, Coghlan to Long, 12 and 16 September 1799; 128, Sir John Coxe Hippisley to John King, 13 September 1799; 129, Mr Brooke to Hippisley, 13 September 1799; 140, Charles Butler to Coghlan, 1799.
4 GM, LVII, January 1787, pp. 25-26; February 1787, pp. 107-108; March 1787, pp. 205-206.
63 an infallible and temporal power was refuted, and controversial practices and doctrines like the veneration of saints and Transubstantiation were understated or even renounced.
Throckmorton had tried early in 1786 to persuade the Vicars Apostolic to sign and publish a modified version of the Principles, to give the public a 'fair and Explicit Exposition of our
Doctrine'.' But the bishops rejected this idea, preferring that an entirely new declaration of
Catholic beliefs be drafted.2 Throckmorton thus had no other option except to have the
Principles printed in a popular journal like the Gentleman 's Magazine. However, he did not do this using his own name, preferring instead to use the pseudonym of 'Candidus'. 3 There were good and practical reasons for this Iecision. Anonymity gave Throckmorton the freedom to speak out without fear of criticism or censure. It also gave his articles a greater authority than if they had been personally signed, and it made them more interesting because of the mystery surrounding the contributor's identity.4
The serialisation of the Principles did more than just pique the curiosity of James WilliamsOn, a Prebendary of Lincoln: it also caused him to write directly against this 'standard Cisalpine formulary'.5 In May 1788, he published the first part of a systematic critique of the outlined tenets. His general argument was that the Principles carried little weight in persuading non-
Catholics that Catholicism was anything other than false and , corrupt, and that the Roman
Catholic Church had no rightful claim to be the Church of Christ. 6 This prompted Joseph
Berington, himself an ardent admirer of the Principles who had lately published a separate
Cited Duffiy, 'Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: II', p. 311.
2 The Catholic community finally got a new 'test' late in 1788 with a document named the 'Protestation of the English Catholics'. See below, p. 66.
For evidence that Throckmorton was 'Candidus', see AAW, PP. A68, John Kirk to William Poynter, 9 August 1819.
' For discussion of the subject of authorial anonymity in the secular and religious periodical press, see (ed.) Walter E. Houghton. The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals 1824-1900 5 vols (London, 1966-1988). 1, pp. xvii-xix; Josef L. Altholz, 'Anonymity and Editorial Responsibility in Religious Journalism', Victorian Periodicals Review, XXIV, Winter 1991, pp. 180-186.
Dufl', op. cit., p. 309.
6 GM. LVIII, May 1788. pp. 412-414; June 1788, pp. 484-485; July 1788, pp. 583-585.
64 edition of the work,' to interrupt Williamson's 'little triumphant reverie' with a reply in which he defended the tract for its clear presentation of the 'sincere and undisguised belief of the
English Roman Catholics'.2 Berington followed this up with a critique of a pamphlet by
Williamson on the matter3 in which he observed that it was 'weakly written' and added that the
Church of England would not fall 'if your goose-quill be not brandished in her cause'.4 Less expected was Mimer's contribution to the debate: 5 he praised Berington's 'enlivening pen, which will not suffer any subject that it touches to languish, or grow insipid', 6 and concurred with him that 'Candidus' had not intended to incite controversy, but rather to heal relations between Catholics and Protestants.
In stark contrast with this rare display of unity was the hostile exchange between Milner and
Berington in 1795, again in the Gentleman's Magazine. Two years before, in May 1793,
Berington had published The Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani, a history of English Catholicism.
This had been written to meet Sir John Throckmorton's wish for a work which would reveal an
'ecclesiastical government depending upon a foreign power, and its whole influence exercised, to prevent [Catholics] from giving to the whole government of their country, that security of their good behaviour which the laws required'. 7 The most sensational part of the book was its preface which contained a threat to publish a history of 'the Rise, the Greatness, the Decline
(and perhaps the Fall) of the Papal Power', 8 and made jocular remarks about the imminent
'Joseph Berington, Reflections, Addressed to the Rev. John Hawkins. To Which is Added, An Exposition of Roman Catholic Principles, in Reference to God and the Country (Birmingham, 1785), pp. 105-121.
2 GM, LVIII, August 1788, p. 696.
James Williamson. A Defence of the Doctrines, Establishment, and Conduct, of the Church of England, From the Charges of the Rev. Joseph Berington and the Rev. John Milner (Oxford, 1790).
4 M LX, November 1790, P. 1012.
Ibid., LVIII, December 1788, pp. 1156-1157.
6 lbid.,p. 1156.
Cited Duffy, 'Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: 11', p. 324.
Joseph Berington. The Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani: Giving An Account of His Agency in England, in the Years 1634, 1635, 1636 (Birmingham, 1793), p. xix. Berington did write, between December 1794 and August 1799, 'The History of the Rise, the Progress, and the Deëline of the Papal Power'. However, it was never published because, as Berington wrote, it contained 'many reflections - some, perhaps, hazarded - that would alarm timid minds, and give offence to the well-meaning', although he did expect
65 collapse of the Papal States. Berington also replied to comments made by Milner against his
publication of 1780, The State and Behaviour of English Catholics, 1 lampooning Milner as a
Pharisee who was 'neither a gentleman nor a Christian',2 and wrote that the Jesuit, Charles
Plowden, who had lately and systematically denounced some of Berington's writings, 3 was
'lineally descended from the same Jerusalem stock', as shown by his willingness to 'spread
from the press defamation and abuse'.4
In May 1795, an anonymous letter, probably written by Charles Plowden, appeared in the
Gentleman's Magazine. It alleged that manuscripts on which The Memoirs of Gregorio
Panzani had been based were forgeries and thus questioned both the reliability of this
Cisalpine history and Berington's abilities as a historian. 5 Berington replied in June,
challenging Plowden to examine the papers that he had used at Oscott College, and
sarcastically suggested that he take along 'his fellow-labourer, the diplomatic John Milner,
whose fame is now high as the sagacious detector of spurious writings and of needle-holes'.6
• This referred to Milner's late concerns about the authenticity of a document deposited in the
British Museum, the 'Protestation of the English Catholics', from which Charles Butler had
developed his contentious oath of allegiance. Originally drafted late in 1788 by the Catholic
Committee, this repudiated the doctrine of papal infallibility and negated the Pope's civil
authority. As Eamon Duff)' writes, it 'contained much to alarm the orthodox', 7 but had still
been signed by over fifteen hundred people, including three Vicars Apostolic and over two hundred priests. Milner's motive for discrediting the 'Protestation', Berington argued, was to that it would be 'perused with pleasure and profit' by 'the more discerning, and the learned' (cited GilIow. 1. p. 195). 'Ibid., V. p.31.
Berington. Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani, p. xxii.
Charles Plowden, Remarks on the Writings of the Rev. Joseph Berington, Addressed to the Catholic Clergy of England (London, 1792).
Berington, op. cit., p. xxxi.
GM, LXV, May 1795, pp. 365-367. °Ibid., June 1795, p. 451.
Dully. 'Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: II', p.313.
66 ruin the 'solemn engagement' entered into in 1791 by English Protestants and Catholics.' This was denied by Mimer who left the readers of the Gentleman's Magazine in no doubt that he thought Berington was beyond contempt because, in his view, he had betrayed the cause and disfigured the tenets of Catholicism.2
Relations among the Cisalpines and Ultramontanes deteriorated further after reports reached
England in August 1796 that Napoleon's advance through Italy had resulted in an outbreak of miraculous events, starting at Ancona on 25 June, where a picture of the Madonna allegedly opened and shut its eyes, and withered flowers placed next to images of Mary suddenly revived, and repeated in Rome. 3 The so-called miracles, taken as a sign that Italy would be protected by God from the French, were immediately dismissed by Berington. Taking care to report his comments as those of an unnamed 'friend', he wrote that they were the mere imaginings of superstitious peasants, which the local clergy, in collusion with the hierarchy, had seized on, converting this 'sottishness of the multitude into a commodious engine of government'.4 Milner, however, believed that they were genuine and published his objections to Berington in a tract issued at the beginning of l797. This was welcomed by Charles
Walmesley, the Vicar Apostolic of the Western District, 6 who demanded that Berington recant his errors. But Berington circulated a letter of self-defence in April, to which was appended the testimony of Bishop John Douglass, the Vicar Apostolic of the London District,7 that his faith
'GM, LXV, June 1795, p. 451.
2 Ibid., August 1795, pp. 723-725.
Miraculous Events Established By Authentic Letters From Italy (London, 1796). See Duffy, 'Doctor Douglass and Mister Berington', p. 251; Dufl', Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: II', p. 327; Eamon Duf1,', 'Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: III (1796-1803)', RH, XIII, 1975-1976, p. 124.
Joseph Berington, An Examination of Events Termed Miraculous, as Reported in Letters from Italy (London, 1796), p. 20.
John Milner, A Serious Expostulation with the Rev. Joseph Berington, Upon His Theological Errors concerning Miracles and Other Subjects (London, 1797).
6 Born in 1722, Walmesley was educated at Douay and Paris, and was professed a Benedictine in 1739. He took over the running of the Western District in 1763 and established himself as the strongest episcopal opponent of the Catholic Committee. See Gillow, V, pp. 569-570.
1 Born in 1743, Douglass was sent to Douay aged thirteen and after his ordination taught at the English College at Valladolid. He returned to England in 1773 and served the mission in Yorkshire. In 1790, Douglass was consecrated Bishop of Centuria inpartibus and appointed Vicar Apostolic of the London District. See ibid. Il, pp. 97-100.
67 was 'pure and orthodox'.' This failed to appease Walmesley: on 3 June, he issued an address to his clergy, excommunicating the whole Catholic Committee and suspending within the
Western District the faculties of all priests, including Berington, who had promoted Butler's schismatic oath of allegiance, subscribed to unorthodox views on papal authority and denounced Walmesley in 1792 for suspending the faculties of the Benedictine, Joseph Wilkes, for his part in the Catholic Committee. The order, Walmesley stated, was to be enforced until those concerned renounced their heresies.2
To ensure that his interdict against the Cisalpines received maximum publicity, Walmesley had
it inserted in the 1798 number of the Laity's Directory. Walmesley originally asked Coghlan to publish his address in September 1797. It might have seemed odd that Coghlan was approached: after all, he had printed the titles censured by Walmesley, including the Catholic
Committee's manifestos, the three Blue Books, and as Robert Banister observed, 'if absolution ought not to be given to the subscribers of Blue Books, neither ought it to be granted to the printer'. Banister, however, had not been aware that Coghlan was engaged in double-dealing: all the time that he was working for the Catholic Committee, he was also passing information about its 'horrid plans' to the Holy See. 'Rome never would have known had I not carefully
sent all thither', he replied to Banister, adding that Cardinal Antonelli, the Prefect of
Propaganda, had made 'good use' of the packages that he had sent until Sir John
Throckmorton, while visiting Rome in 1793, 'found me out'.4 Coghlan accepted Walmesley's request only after he had been advised by a Jesuit friend, Charles Plowden's elder brother
Robert, that a refusal would result in his ears being 'cut off& nailed to the pillory'. 5 Coghlan's
reluctance to engage the Laity's Directory in controversy was justified by Bishop Douglass'
reaction. He regarded Walmesley's edict as a personal slight because many of the priests
Joseph Berington. A Letter to the Right Reverend John Douglass, Vicar Apostolic of the London District (London, 1797), p. 23.
2 Ward, Dawn of the Catholic Revival, 11, pp. 145-152; Rowlands, 'Staffordshire Clergy', pp. 234-235; Duffy, 'Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: Ill', p. 126.
LRO, BU 14, CP, 62, Charles Walmesley to Coghlan, 25 September 1797.
"Cited Banister to Rutter, 23 November 1796, in (ed.) Gooch, Revivdl of English Catholicism, p. 267.
LRO, BUI4, CP. 68, Robert Plowden to Coghlan, 27 October 1797.
68 affected by it worked under his jurisdiction. Douglass accordingly forced Coghlan to hold the
publication back from the press while he tried to persuade Walmesley to reconsider.
Walmesley held firm, however, and the Laity's Directory appeared with his divisive mandate
inserted between its covers just days before he died on 25 November.'
The publication of the address in the Laity's Directory disappointed not only Douglass, but
also Thomas Southworth, the President of Sedgley Park School in Staffordshire 2 and one of
the priests censured by Walmesley. Southworth asked Coghian to explain why he had allowed
his publication to be used to stir up controversy:
I have received your directory for the year 1798. In it I find a Publication, purporting to be an Address from the Rt. Rev. Charles Walmesley to the Clergy of the Western District, dated Bath, Sept. 25. 1797. In the publication of this address I feel myself much concerned: and therefore request you will please to inform me, as speedily as may be, whether it be made public by yourself, as a piece you have met with: or [whether] you have published it by directions from some other person; and if so, who is the person, that gave you those directions. These queries I have a right to put to you, and to receive a satisfactory answer.3
In self-defence, Coghlan argued that he had acted in strict accordance with his promise to
Bishop Challoner in 1763 which left him powerless to disobey an instruction from a member of the episcopate. But this explanation did not satisfy Southworth:
You say again, that you are to attend to what Bishops order you. Yet I have heard of a smart saying of yours, viz, that the Bp's authority ended with the last day of Decr. This, I understood, you said to a Bp. when he complained of something you had published, or advertised. During the time, that you kept the press open, which was nearly six weeks, you say, did you ever consult our Bp. about the publication in question? And so many of his Clergy being concerned, he had surely a right to be attended to. When Bp. Challoner directed you, as you observe to attend to what Bps. ordered, I suppose he meant not, that you should attend to only who was concerned.4
There was some degree of reparation in the next issue of the Laity's Directory, in a statement which withdrew the censure against those clergy who had been implicated by Walmesley's
'Ward, Dawn of the Catholic Revival, II, p. 148.
2 Born in 1749 and educated at Douay, Southworth was ordained in 1776. He was made President of Sedgley Park School in 1781 and stayed in this post until his death in 1816. See Godfrey Anstruther, The Seminary Priests: A Dictionary of the Secular Clergy of England and Wales 1558-1850 4 vols (Ware, Durham and Great Wakering, 1968-1977), IV, p. 255.
LRO, flU 14, CP, 78, Thomas Southworth to Coghlan, 27 November 1797.
"Ibid., 79. Southworth to Coghlan. 9 December 1797.
69 address, and which was signed by Gregory Sharrock, Walmesley's successor in the Western
District, William Gibson, the Vicar Apostolic of the Northern District, and Bishop Douglass.'
The threat of outright schism might have been avoided, but this did not mean that the rift within the English Catholic community.had been healed, as was made evident after Milner published the first part of his two-volume history of Winchester in 1798.2 Contained in this work, described by Eamon Dufly as an 'unpalatable mixture of deep learning and the roughest of polemic',3 were some severe criticisms of Benjamin Hoadly, Bishop of Winchester from
1734 until his death in 1761, whom Milner described as having undermined the Church of
England through his championship of the Low Church, a party which 'gives up all pretensions to divine jurisdiction, the power of the keys, the necessity of ministerial succession, the authority of the convocation, together with the certainty of the 39 articles'. 4 Partly in reply to this display of illiberalism, a Prebendary of Winchester, John Sturges, issued a tract which not only defended Hoadly as the 'Great Advocate of Civil and Religious Liberty', but also comprehensively attacked Catholicism on the presumption that most Catholics commended
Milner.5
Contrary to what Sturges believed, however, Milner lacked the support of at least one fellow
Catholic, Joseph Berington, who vented his strong feelings on the matter to the Gentleman's
Magazine in a letter of 6 August J 799. Berington disowned Milner's 'hazarded opinions and censures' and congratulated Sturges for his 'moderate' reflections, contrasting them with the
'intemperance of the Catholick author'. He also indiscreetly endorsed Sturges' criticisms of
Catholicism and provided a candid insight into the beliefs of those Catholics who considered
Laity's Directory (1799); Ward, Dawn of the Catholic Revival, II, pp. 151-152.
2 John Milner, The History Civil and Ecclesiastical, and Survey of the Antiquities of Winchester 2 vols (Winchester, 1798-1801).
Dufl,', 'Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: 111', p. 133.
"Milner, op. cit., I, pp. 445-446. Quotation from p. 445.
John Sturges, Reflections on the Principles and Institutions of Popery, With Reference to Civil Society and Government, Especially That of This Kingdom; Occasioned By the Rev. John Mimer 's History of Winchester (London, 1799). Quotation from p. 100.
6 GM, LXIX, August 1799, pp. 653-654.
,70 themselves 'truly English'.' Berington wrote in his letter that the 'successors of Peter' had
acquired all their powers by 'human means' alone and had 'sometimes erred, and sometimes
been extremely vicious' in leading an institution which held 'intolerance' to be the 'professed
doctrine of her decrees'. lie also stated a desire to see the 'extremely burthensome' law of
celibacy repealed and admitted a lack of interest in the future of monastic institutions which,
he contended, had been a 'source of misery' to many people. Berington, however, reserved his
most 'severe animadversion' for émigré Catholic communities which had recruited novices in
open defiance of the law, thereby provoking Protestant resentment and obstructing the way by
which English Catholics could be admitted to full civil and religious toleration.2
The timing of Berington's letter, particularly with its savage references to the papacy, could
not have been worse for the Church. Just eighteen months before, in February 1798, Rome had
fallen to Napoleon's Revolutionary army, as Berington had predicted would happen in The
Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani,3 and the ailing Pius VI was taken captive to France where he
died on 29 August J7994 Berington not surprisingly provoked an angry reaction. A Protestant
contributor to the issue of the Gentleman 's Magazine for September 1799 expressed alarm that
a 'professor of the Catholic communion' had led the 'hood-winked phalanxes of innovation
and democratic principles' by sounding.the 'tocsin of revolution'. 5 The same number of the
journal carried a letter from Milner who condemned Berington for his 'sudden and violent
attack' on Catholicism. 6 Mimer was certain that Berington's letter had been 'drawn up with
great art' 7 to cause controversy and upset, and he confided privately in Douglass that
Berington's radical views had, in addition to giving Protestants cause for celebration,
scandalised most Catholics, including his fellow Cisalpines:
'GM. LXIX, August 1799. p. 653.
2 Ibid.. pp. 653-654.
See above, pp. 65-66.
Ward, Dawn of the Catholic Revival, 1, pp. 183-193.
GM, LXIX, September 1799, pp. 749-750.
6 !bid.. pp. 750-751.
7 AAW. DP, A53, Milner to John Douglass, October 1799.
71 I am informed from good authority that Mr. Butler has written to a common friend (whom I suppose to be Sir John Thrn) expressing his disapprobation of Jos. B—ns famous letter in the last Gent. Mag. viz for August p. 653, in commendation of Dr. Sturges & his doctrine, &c. This I regard as a proof that he considers Mr. B—n to have advanced too far in some of his opinions, for that the letter was written, in general, with his concurrence I have no doubt, when I consider the close connexion between the parties & with their common patron Sir John Thn. . .1 find all persons, even those whose principles & connexions are most suspicious, loud in their condemnations of Jos. B—ns aforesaid letter.'
Milner therefore urged Douglass to reprimand Berington, to protect the public from his
'mingled infection of heterodoxy, irreligion and immorality'. Indeed, Milner suggested,
Douglass ought to write a pastoral against Berington for the next number of the Laity's
Directoy.2 But Douglass preferred to take a more direct course of action and, on 22
November, ordered Berington to obviate the scandal by issuing a public apology.3
Berington was not in a position to refuse Douglass. Within four days of receiving the
instruction, he sent the editor of the Gentleman 's Magazine a letter in which he said that he
had caused, albeit unintentionally, much upset. However, the letter was unsatisfactory as a
recantation of heterodox principles. Berington had simply written it by prefixing phrases like 'I
should not have said' and 'I should not have acknowledged' to statements contained in the
original offending piece, before concluding: 'Such, I am warranted to believe, are the
sentiments of an orthodox, an enlightened, and a liberal English Catholic; and, as they
sufficiently indicate what my principal errors were, I shall, at this time, proceed no farther'.4
As Milner told Douglass, the 'retractation' was nothing but a 'burlesque' and a 'mockery',
and, filled with 'solemn sarcasm', it had inflicted a 'cruel wound to religion itself. 5 Douglass
agreed and reacted on 11 February 1800 by withdrawing Berington's missionary faculties.
These were only restored twelve months later after Berington signed a formal declaration of
orthodoxy. In this document, Berington submitted himself absolutely to the Holy See and
AAW, DP, A53, Mimer to Douglass, 25 September 1799.
2 Ibid., Mimer to Douglass, October 1799.
Ibid., Douglass to Joseph Berington, 22 November 1799.
GA'!, LXIX. December 1799, p. 1023.
AAW, DP, A53, Mimer to Douglass, 6 January 1800.
72 acknowledged the Pope's universal spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He also stated his adherence to all the doctrines and definitions of Roman Catholicism and revoked unequivocally those of his publications that contained any material deemed to be contrary to the teachings and canons of the Church.'
The fact that occasional vital use was made of the Gentleman's Magazine by Catholics between 1787 and 1799 indicates that they lacked a monthly periodical during this period which they could claim as their own. This assumption clashes with the testimony of Frederick
Charles Husenbeth who made a direct correlation between literary productivity and the religio- political events of the late eighteenth century when he stated that a journal named the Catholic
Magazine had been established 'about the year I 79Ø2 Husenbeth said this on the basis of vague remembrances, without corroboration, and his chronology needs to be discounted because no work like this is known to exist from that time. It is more probable that, in describing a 'very respectable periodical, well conducted and neatly printed', 3 Husenbeth was actually recalling a later publication, the Catholic Magazine and Reflector, which first appeared in January l8O1. This is not to discredit the thesis that Catholic periodical journalism enjoyed a close relationship with the age of the Relief Act of 1791, but rather shows, as Bernard Ward argued, that it was only at the dawn of the nineteenth century that the full impact of earlier political change was truly registered. 5 In the last decade of the eighteenth century, Catholics gradually realised that the most oppressive anti-Catholic penal laws had been dismantled, resulting in the beginning of a periodical that was more ambitious than any produced by an English Catholic since Nathaniel Thompson had last published his newsletter.
'Ward, Dawn of the Catholic Revival, II, pp. 213-215; DufI', 'Doctor Douglass and Mister Berington', pp. 26 1-262; DufI', 'Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: 111', PP. 134-139.
2 Husenbeth, 'Catholic Periodicals', p. 3. Ibid.
AAW, Bishop Douglass Diaries, 31 January 1801: 'On this day was published the 1st Number of the Catholic Magazine from the Press of T Schofield Dale Street Liverpool'.
Bernard Ward, The Eve of Catholic Emancipation 3 vols (London, 1911), 1, p. 1.
73 It is indeed unlikely that a Catholic magazine could have appeared earlier because, while the political circumstances had been conducive, a decisive and determining element had been
lacking. The absent ingredient was the entrepreneurial enterprise and commercial foresight of the new publishing house of Keating, Brown and Keating. This firm was created in 1800 through the amalgamation of the father-and-son partnership of Patrick and George Keating' with the business of Richard Brown,2 inherited from his uncle, James Peter Coghlan, who had died on 20 February. Having decided to continue publishing both the Ordo and the Laity's
Directory,3 the three men immediately planned a more regular title which, in the words of one
contemporary, was 'well calculated for a populous, manufacturing country'. 4 Their decision
materialised as the Catholic Magazine and Reflector, a unique literary forum to which all were
invited to contribute.
The Catholic Magazine and Reflector, which appeared monthly until December 1801, was published in London but based essentially in Liverpool where it was printed and edited. 5 An
expanding industrial centre of a region with a traditionally high concentration of Catholics,6
Liverpool gave the publication a solid platform. The area also gave the Catholic Magazine and
Reflector its editor, a sixty-four year-old Dominican missioner named William Hyacinth
1-loughton who apparently was 'an excellent classical scholar and a good poet'. 7 Houghton
According to Gillow, the father, Patrick Keating, began his career apprenticed to James Marmaduke. For further information about the Keatings, see Gil/ow, 111, pp. 675-676. 2 Brown began his career working for Coghlan, his uncle through marriage, and the new firm of Keating, Brown and Keating was based at Coghlan's old premises in Duke Street, Grosvenor Square. See ibid, 1, pp. 322-325. The Ordo and Laity's Directory remained in print until 1838. After that, the Ordo was taken over by another Catholic publisher, Charles Dolman (for whom, see below, p. 216), and the Laity's Directory was replaced in 1839 with the Catholic Directory, first published by the firm Simpkin and Marshall, but acquired by Dolman in 1840.
"BAA. CI 642, John Bew to Kirk, 26 February 1801.
Although Gillow forwarded the primacy of the Catholic Magazine and Reflector, he wrongly said that it only survived until July 1801. This incorrect statement was repeated by John R. Fletcher and Susan J. Acheson who both also presumed Husenbeth's Catholic Magazine to be a separate publication from the Catholic Magazine and Reflector. However, among the collections of lishaw College, Oscott College and Allen Hall are copies of a second volume of this work, containing six separate numbers for July to December 1801.
6 See Bossy, English Catholic Community, pp. 302-307 and pp. 423-427.
For Houghton, see Gil/ow, III, pp. 416-418. Quotation from p. 416.
74 ensured that the magazine, which he instilled with an eirenic and ecumenical spirit, consistently took a conciliatory stance. Under his aegis, it refused to become either a counter- productive 'repository of theological controversy" or, as Mimer thought it would be, a
'vehicle of partys & abuse', 2 but instead served as a Cisalpine means of propitiating
Protestants by trying to reform misrepresentations about the Catholic faith and community.
This approach was expedient in an age when the hopes of English Catholics that full emancipation was imminent had been revived with the implementation of the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland in January 1801, the same month that the Catholic
Magazine and Reflector had first appeared. When the Prime Minister, William Pitt, introduced his bill for the legislative union of the two countries, it was on the understanding that, if passed, measures granting Irish Catholics an unequivocal civil and religious liberty would follow. Early in 1801, therefore, English Catholics anticipated benefits identical to those promised to their brethren in Ireland. But these hopes were disappointed by George Ill who vetoed further concessions to Irish or English Catholics in February, causing Pitt and his government to resign.3
Despite this setback, however, the Catholic Magazine and Reflector persevered with its ultimate objective of encouraging unity between Catholics and Protestants. Holding firm to the
Augustinian maxim 'in necessariis unitas in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas',4 the periodical eschewed the language of calumny in favour of benign and enlightened Catholic erudition and intellectual proficiency. 5 Through its many learned articles and letters, contributed by
Catholics and Protestants, on philosophical, theological, historical and literary subjects, the
Catholic Magazine and Reflector tried to widen the boundaries of religious debate, to
'Catholic Magazine and Reflector, 1, Jan uary 1801, p. 39. 2 ABSI, ML, I, 173, Milner to Charles Plowden, 15 December 1800.
Ward, Dawn of the Catholic Revival, II, pp. 215-217. ' 'In essential things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity'.
Catholic Magazine and Reflector. 1, April 1801, p. 237.
75 encourage friendly exchanges between parties of opposing ideological and theological positions.
Although it might not have caused George Ill to change his mind over Catholic emancipation, the Catholic Magazine and Reflector' received support from a significant non-Catholic readership.' The periodical also depended on subscriptions from Catholics, particularly those who shared its Cisalpine sympathies like the priest and antiquarian John Kirk. 2 However, because it overtly appealed to a particular section of the English Catholic community, the
Catholic Magazine and Reflector, amid the litigious climate of the time, repelled some
Ultramontanes who were alarmed by its advocacy of inter-denominational harmony. 3 Their orchestrated attack on the Catholic Magazine and Reflector, which was the opening salvo in the battle between liberals and conservatives for control of the periodical press, ensured that it did not receive universal encouragement from an apathetic Catholic body and contributed to its sudden end after only one year.
The English Catholic community's inability to establish an immediate successor to the
Catholic Magazine and Reflector can be explained from persistent internecine feuding which ensured the alienation of many possible readers and deterred prospective publishers from making the necessary economic investment. 4 But a more crucial factor was the wider political atmosphere of the first decade of the nineteenth century which inhibited both Catholic social progress and literary development. The essential problem was George Ill's continuing opposition to the legal resolution of the Catholic issue. In response to the King's refractoriness, English Catholics adopted a low political profile. They took no direct involvement in the two rejected parliamentary petitions presented by Irish Catholics in 1805
Catholic Magazine and Reflector, II. September 1801, p. 139. 2 Born in 1760, Kirk was educated at the English College at Rome and ordained in 1784. He returned to England the following year and held a variety of posts in the Midland District before being appointed to the mission at Lichfield in 1801, where he remained until his death in 1850. Kirk was a strong Cisalpine and a leading member of the group of Staffordshire clergy which was condemned in 1797 by Bishop Walmesley. See Gil/ow, IV, pp. 37-50; Kirk, Biographies of English Catholics, pp. vii-xvi and p. 145; Frederick Charles Husenbeth, Rev. John Kirk D.D.', Midland Catholic History, 1991, pp. 36-43.
C'atholic Magazine and Reflector, II, September 1801, p. 139.
See below, p. 78.
76 and 1808. Nor did they offer any corporate assistance to the Foreign Secretary, Viscount l-lowick, when he proposed altering the Military Bill in February 1807 so that Catholics could hold commissions in the army.' This concession was personally vetoed by George Ill who demanded from the then Prime Minister, Baron Grenville, and his Cabinet an assurance that pro-Catholic bills would not be reintroduced. However, they refused to bow to the royal will and resigned in March 1807. The consequent political vacuum was filled immediately by the anti-Catholic administration of William Bentinck, Duke of Portland.
It was not until May 1808 that English Catholics collectively responded to this dangerous situation through the effort of a core group of laymen, among them Charles Butler and Sir John
Throckmorton, who organised themselves under the secretaryship of Edward Jerningham2 into the Catholic Board, the successor to the Catholic Committee. Its initial main objective was to
'disseminate publications likely to dispose the public mind in our favour'. 3 The Catholic
Board, however, was unwilling to establish its own literary organ, preferring instead to channel information through liberal Protestant periodicals like the Oracle and the Edinburgh Review.4
This deliberate targeting of a non-Catholic audience was strategically designed to evoke popular sympathy for the Catholic cause and thus change the direction then being followed by the government.
The dissemination of propaganda through popular forms of literature was joined in 1809 by direct lobbying after Bishop William Gibson and members of leading Catholic families in the
Northern District asked the Catholic Board to request Parliament to grant emancipation. The
Board agreed to do this at a meeting in April, but delayed preparing a formal petition until the autumn for presentation in the new year. The original document, drafted by Butler, called for the repeal of all tests which shut Catholics out from senior military office, denied them the franchise and excluded them from political office. These demands were eventually supported
'Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, I, p. 44.
2 Jerningham was born in 1774 and received a Catholic education abroad. Like Butler, he studied law and came to the Bar aller the Relief Act of 1791. He died in May 1822. See Gil/ow, III, pp. 627-628.
BL, Add. Mss., 25127, CBL, Butler to Edward Hay, 5 May 1809.
Ibid., Butler to Richard Shame, 26 May 1809.
77 by over eight thousand signatories, including three hundred priests and all four Vicars
Apostolic who, since his consecration as Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District and Bishop
of Castabala in partibus on 22 May 1803, now counted Milner among their number. In the
autumn of 1809, the Catholic community appeared to have established an unprecedented
modus vivendi through which laymen and clergy of different ideological persuasions could
work together in the struggle for civil and religious equality.
At this critical juncture, proposals were made by three separate parties to revive a regular
Catholic periodical press in weekly, monthly and quarterly formats. Those hoping to establish
a weekly paper, to be conducted 'on the most enlarged principles of religious liberty',' directly
sought the Catholic Board's help. From Butler's reply, however, the Board was reluctant to
assist. Indeed, Butler expressed a reservation as to whether the venture would succeed. He
believed the English Catholic body to be too small to maintain a magazine and wrote that
'there is not sufficient cooperation among [Catholics] to support the three pu.blications'.2
Keating, Brown and Keating agreed with Butler, inasmuch as they attributed the lack of a
Catholic journal to the previous lack of unanimous support from the Catholic community:
Amidst the variety of productions that issue periodically from the British Press, every taste has been consulted, every concern attended to... Every description of men, every profession, has its own compilation... Well may the Catholic exclaim:.. .Whence comes it that no such plan has ever been adopted for me and my brethren? - Is it timidity, caution, forbearance on our part? - But then, why are we not afraid to knock and knock again at the very doors of the legislature, even while we know they do not like to be told, it is for our rights we are petitioning? - Is it the paucity of our numbers? - Yet we may say, and say truly, that we constitute one fifth of the population of the empire. - Is it want of abilities? What! have we not our Milners, - our Lingards, - our Plowdens, - our Reeves, - our Coombes? - Have we not many others, whom professional duties have not permitted to dedicate much time to literary pursuits, but the occasional emanation from whose piety and learning, if collected into one focus, might diffuse a beneficent light, far beyond the present contracted circle of their influence, to enlighten their age and country? Whence, then, this chasm, which nobody has yet undertaken to fill up? We ascribe this apparent neglect to the little hopes of unanimity in the support and management of such a publication, and to the consequent fear, not only of failing in the attempt, but of failing with a considerable loss of the property embarked in the undertaking.3
BL, Add. Mss., 25127, CBL, Butler to Edward Jerningham, 3 November 1809.
2 Ibid.. Butler to 'Gentlemen', 6 November 1809.
Laity's Directory (1810).
78 However, Keating, Brown and Keating believed that English Catholics would be more
receptive in the modern political climate and therefore devised a plan for a quarterly review to
be named the Cat holicon.
In November 1809, the Laity's Directory published the prospectus for the Catholicon. Like the
Catholic Magazine and Reflector before it, the Caiholicon was promoted as a collection of reviews, essays and verse, intended to attract an inter-denominational readership. The
Catholicon was also designed to differ from its predecessor by avoiding any distinct
ideological bias: editorial policy was geared towards neutrality, welcoming Cisalpine and
Ultramontane contributions and subscriptions, so that the Catholicon, consistent with the spirit of the age, would represent the whole of English Catholic society. Hence, its main purpose was to nurture the existing unanimity between the respective Catholic factions by encouraging representatives of divergent religio-political opinions to stand alongside one another as contributors and readers. Keating, Brown and Keating thus anticipated that the Catholicon would succeed both as a reflection and, more powerfully, as an example of Catholic unity, serving to push their brethren forward in the quest for emancipation.
It was soon apparent, however, that the Catholicon was based on a fragile foundation, for belying the appearance of Catholic unity were traditional tensions. These grew with the publicising of Sir John Coxe Hippisley's controversial proposals for Catholic deliverance which involved giving the Crown not only the prerogative of exequatur over all incoming papal correspondence, but also a veto over the appointment of Catholic bishops. The Catholic
Board supported 1-lippisley and conspired with government officials during January 1810 to incorporate similar conciliatory securities into its petition. From these discussions arose a series of resolutions, the fifth and final one of which committed English Catholics in principle to supporting and maintaining the religious and civil establishments of the kingdom.
The Catholic Board's petition, submitted to Parliament on 22 February with the written support of five English bishops, was vociferously opposed by Milner who discerned within the
'fifth resolution' a government veto on the appointment of Catholic bishops, although this was denied by its advocates who believed it to be a mere conciliatory gesture. As agent to the anti-
79 vetoist Irish bishops, Mimer stated his resentment of what he saw as a schismatic measure which subjugated the Catholic Church to the whim of a Protestant temporal ruler and endangered the independence of its episcopate.' Amid the resulting acrimony, the Catholicon, dependent entirely on the existence of harmony, was judged to be politically and commercially unviable even before a single number had appeared. It therefore suffered the same fate as the other two planned periodicals which also foundered on corporate apathy, political inexpediency and internal division.
That the Catholicon, in particular, remained unpublished satisfied Charles Butler. In a letter to the Cisalpine historian, John Lingard,2 he had voiced a suspicion that the project emanated from the 'Mimer School'. He believed this because Keating, Brown and Keating, attempting to appease those Ultramontane detractors who had previously undermined the Catholic Magazine and Reflector, had guaranteed in the prospectus for the Catholicon that the orthodoxy of the new periodical would be secured by submitting every number to the censorship of the Catholic episcopate. This was anathema to Butler who lamented that it would mean the bishops having
'unlimited controul' of a powerful weapon against the Catholic Board.3
However, the idea of a Catholic periodical now appealed to Butler and, in an expression that was symptomatic of the pervading rift within English Catholic society, he voiced his desire to see established an exclusively Cisalpine quarterly review. This he wanted to be conducted by
Lingard on an 'enlarged and liberal plan' and without prelatic restraint.4 Lingard evidently did not reply to this call and Butler had to repeat his plea on 22 December:
'Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, 1, pp. 114-140.
2 Born in February 1771, Lingard was sent to Douay at the age of eleven with Mimer's help and encouragement. He returned to England in 1793, having escaped from France after the declaration of war, and was ordained in April 1795. In October 1794, Lingard was appointed as Vice-President of Crook Hall. He moved with this community to Ushaw in 1808, remaining there until 1811 when he took charge of the mission at Homby. Here he stayed until his death in 1851. See Gillow, IV, pp. 254-278; Martin Haile and Edwin Bonney, Life and Letters of John Lingard, 1771-1851 (London, 1911); Joseph P. Chinnici, The English Catholic Enlightenment: John Lingard and the Cisalpine Movement, 1780- 1850 (Shepherdstown, West Virginia, 1980); (ed.) J.A. Hilton, A Catholic of the Enlightenment: Essays on Lingard's Work and Times (Wigan, 1999).
BL, Add. Mss.. 25127, CBL, Butler to Lingard, 23 November 1809.
"Ibid., Butler to Lingard, 23 November 1809. -
80 In respect to the Review, I like the idea so well that I should be sorry if it were dropt, and I beg leave to observe that if there be not exertion among us to support a quarterly review we might support a half yearly or a yearly review, but this must be by the co operation of the Irish Catholics. I should have no doubt that with the active exertions of yourself and three or four other gentlemen.. .such a publication might be established and supported with credit. ..l hope you will not entirely let the subject drop.'
But by the beginning of 1810, there was little likelihood that this project would be realised.
Lingard rejected the idea because, preoccupied with administrative and teaching duties at
Ushaw College, he had neither the time nor the inclination to make the required commitment.
More seriously, the other three recent failed attempts at reviving Catholic journalism had apparently doomed any similar enterprise. It appeared that the possibility of a regular Catholic periodical press in England had been destroyed by Catholic internal politics. This state of nullity was merely confirmed in May when a parliamentary majority opposed representations for unconditional emancipation. After these political and literary setbacks, it seemed improbable, at the end of a decade which had begun so optimistically, that, with the exception of its annual publications, the English Catholic periodical press would be stirred from a seemingly interminable slumber.
Two years passed before the English Catholic community collectively began agitating once again for emancipation. The impetus for change came from radical alterations to the national political landscape during the first half of 1812. When English Catholics had last petitioned the government for relief, they had faced the twin insurmountable barriers of George III and his Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval. However, by the summer of 1812, both had been removed from power, by mental illness and an assassin's bullet. After monarchical control was transferred to the potentially less implacable Prince Regent, a petition was presented to him by a number of English Catholics who counted among their number Bishop Douglass, his coadjutor, William Poynter,2 seven peers, four baronets and three hundred other leading clergy and laity. Also, on 22 June, a month after Perceval's assassination, the parliamentarian and
'CUL, Add. 9418. LP. Butler to Lingard, 22 December 1809.
2 Poynter was born in May 1762, educated at Douay and ordained in 1786. He returned to England in 1795 and was appointed as Vice-President of St Edmunds, becoming President in 1801. In 1803, Poynter was consecrated Bishop of Halia in partibus and coadjutor of the London District. He succeeded Douglass as Vicar Apostolic in 1812 and died in November 1827. See Gil/ow, V, pp. 358-361.
81 leading Protestant advocate of emancipation, George Canning, successfully moved in the
House of Commons that the Catholic question be seriously considered and satisfactorily
resolved early the following year.'
This change of fortunes coincided with the resurgence of the English Catholic periodical press
when a monthly publication simply called the Catholic Magazine first appeared at the end of
June to spearhead the renewed political activity. Previous chroniclers of Catholic journalism
have not found copies of this work and Susan J. Acheson has even questioned whether it
existed.2 However, a volume of the Catholic Magazine, containing six numbers published
between June and December 1812, has lately been found in Oxford at the Bodleian Library.3
Its founder was a Belgian émigré, Baldwin Janson, who had earned a living as a 'Professor of
the Dutch, German, and French Languages' to members of the English royalty and nobility
since arriving in London thirty years before. 4 Janson had recently married a young English
Methodist who converted to Catholicism, a move that angered his wife's relatives. It was their
attacks on him which prompted Janson to begin the Catholic Magazine, to 'remove, or at least
diminish, those numberless false fabricated notions and prejudices forged against Catholics, so
deeply rooted in the minds of many seeming well-informed Protestants'.5
The Catholic Magazine signalled the stirrings of a new era in Catholic journalism, defined by
a regression from eirenicism. From its first number, the Catholic Magazine discarded the
Cisalpine yoke of the Catholic Magazine and Reflector, replacing moderate apologetic and
'Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, II. pp. 1-4.
2 Acheson, Catholic Journalism', p. 84.
I have also located the following sources containing direct references to the Catholic Magazine: ABSI, ML, 11. 40, Milnerto Abbé Le Pointe, 22 June 1812; DL, Add. Mss., 25128. CDL, Butler to Jemingham. 12 and 21 August 1812; Oscott College Archives, Bew to George Crook, I and 27 November 1812; Methodist Magazine. XXXV, December 1812, PP. 917-930 and XXXVI, March 1813. pp. 228-233.
For biographical details, see Baldwin Janson, A Grammar of the Dutch Language; Wherein the Rules are laid down in so Easy and Conspicuous a Manner, that the most moderate Capacity may attain it in a very Short Time, without the Assistance of a Master (London, 1792); Baldwin Janson, A Practical Grammar of the Dutch Language, with Exercises to Each Rule: To which are Added Commercial Letters and Dialogues, Both Dutch and English, With an Introduction, B y which the Dutch and Germans may Acquire a Knowledge of the English Language (London, 1803); Catholic Magazine and Review, February 1813, p. 79; 0.1, XII, December 1830, p. 454.
Catholic Magazine, August 1812, p. 51.
82 ecumenical rhetoric with a strident and triumphalist assertion of Roman Catholic orthodoxy.
This was made clear from the notice on the title-page that Janson's periodical was published
'By Permission of the Right Rev. John Milner'. The Catholic Magazine's Ultramontane
identity was also cemented by its opening gambit, a posthumously published article on papal
infallibility by Bishop Douglass.' This contained an attack on two French émigrés, the Abbés
Blanchard and Gaschet, whose faculties Douglass had suspended in August 1808. The action
had been necessary because Blanchard and Gaschet had violently opposed Pius VII since
1805, calling him a 'material heretic' 2 and a 'pretended Pope'3 for entering into a concordat
with Napoleon in July 1801, and suppressing the ancient French dioceses and allowing
Napoleon to nominate new bishops for what Blanchard described as a 'phantom Church'.4
Janson's tactic of directly countering • Protestant recalcitrance, while taking unorthodox
Catholics to task, was not universally approved. Charles Butler noted that the second issue of the Catholic Magazine, which appeared belatedly in August, was 'much worse than the first,
and spoken of by every one with indignation'.5 His opinion was shared by John Bew who had
served as the first President of Oscott College between 1796 and 1808, and was now serving
the mission at Brighton.6 He felt disinclined to read the periodical again after observing that it
was merely a 'convenient drain for [Milner's] bad humours'. 7 Indeed, after the publication of
the first number, Janson received a 'deluge of insulting anonymous letters', accusing him of
having produced a work that was 'a scrawl - a trash - foreign language - written by a layman,
unauthorised of deciding upon doctrines - insulting and offensive to the Protestants and the
'Catholic Magazine, June 1812, pp. 1-15. Douglass had died on 8 May 1812.
2 Cited Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, I, p. 87.
Cited ibid.. p. 90.
Cited ibid For full discussion of the Blanchardist Schism, see ibid., pp. 83-98.
BL, Add. Mss., 25128. CBL. Butler to Jerninghani, 21 August 1812.
6 Educated at Douay and Paris, Bew was ordained in 1784. He was appointed as President of St Edmund's in 1812 and died in 1829. See Gillow, 1, pp. 208-210.
Oscott College Archives, Bew to Crook, I November 1812.
83 French clergy - dangerous and obstructive to Catholic emancipation - an old woman's
tautology, more calculated to do harm than good to religion'.'
This opposition, however, did not move Janson who at first enjoyed the strong approval of
some of the 'most learned and orthodox clergy'. 2 But the encouragement shown towards the
Catholic Magazine by certain eminent members of the priesthood was severely tested in
September when Janson printed a letter by an individual writing as 'Catholicus'. 3 Addressing
himself directly to Mimer, 'Catholicus' bluntly argued that the Crown ought to be granted the
prerogative of veto over Catholic bishops in return for relief measures:
It is contended by you and some other persons of learning, that we should not allow to the king the power of a controul over the appointment of Catholic Bishops! I cannot certainly see the full force and propriety of this objection; if we expect confidence, reciprocal confidence will be required of us. If we are to be admitted to seats of honour, to a participation of the wealth and rank which are open to Protestants, it is but natural that we yield to the sovereign, who is the source of these distinctions, something like a discretionary power over us.
'Clericus' also questioned the value of those people who advocated an unconditional form of
emancipation, and argued that they had a 'tendency indirectly injurious to the best interests of
the Catholic body'.4 In immediate reply, two anonymous correspondents conveyed their
astonishment that a letter which contradicted Milner had found space in a supposedly orthodox work.5 Milner himself chastised Janson and, ignoring the editor's plea that he be forgiven for what he 'may incautiously have published', withdrew his support for the Catholic Magazine with immediate effect.6
The controversial nature of the Catholic Magazine prompted Keating, Brown and Keating late in 1812 to publish in the Laity's Directory a prospectus for a corrective weekly production,
Catholic Magazine, August 1812, p. 49 Janson was also criticised publicly for his 'scurrilous invectives' against Protestants by the editor of the Evangelical Magazine and Missionary Chronicle (XXI, February 1813, pp. 68-69).
2 ('atholic Magazine. August 1812, p.49.
Ibid., September 1812, PP. 89-92.
"Ibid., p. 92.
Ibid., October 1812, pp. 133-137. -
6 Ibid., November 1812, pp. 177-178; December 1812, pp. 215-216. Quotation from p.216.
84 appropriately named the Conciliator. This periodical was promoted as a medium for developing inter-denominational relations by eschewing divisive controversy in favour of material that stressed the common ground between Catholics and Protestants:
The object of this undertaking is to remove the prejudices which exist against a body of people forming a great and important proportion of the inhabitants of this extensive empire. Prejudices which had their beginning in periods of great heat and agitation, ought, in a milder age, no longer to subsist. We however see, that every method which a discordant spirit can resort to, is employed to perpetuate these prejudices; and books teeming with them, are very widely circulated with a most mischievous industry. A publication, the object of which is conciliatory, cannot be unacceptable to a liberal and enlightened people; as it will, on examination, be found to contain nothing more than an Apology for the religion which humanized and softened the fierce Saxon, and which Alfred and the Barons of Runnemede professed. The calumniated Catholic claims only what justice and candour will admit to him, an impartial investigation of his principles; convinced as he is, that [t]here is nothing in his creed, however it may differ from that of his neighbour, which ought to render him unworthy [of] the generous confidence of his fellow-citizens.'
The Conciliator unfortunately failed to appear. 2 Even if it had done so early in 1813, as planned, it would probably have soon been rendered redundant because the Catholic
Magazine, responding to the threat of possible competition and negative reaction, had by this time realigned itself on liberal and ecumenical principles similar to those proposed by Keating,
Brown and Keating. The man responsible for renewing the work as the Catholic Magazine and
Review was its former main critic, Charles Butler. He replaced Janson as its acting editor, and helped in his editorial duties by Joseph Nightingale,3 a Unitarian preacher and Catholic sympathiser, seized the opportunity of fashioning and controlling a Cisalpine organ removed from episcopal stricture.4
Under Butler's aegis, the Catholic Magazine and Review tried to secure a Catholic-Protestant rapprochement in its pursuit of the 'great cause of Catholic Emancipation, and the unlimited
Laity's Directory (1813).
2 Bernard Ward did claim that 'in the early months of 1813 a few numbers of a periodical called the Conciliator appeared, but it soon came to an end' (Eve of Cat ho/ic Emancipation, II, p. 173). However, no copies of this publication are known to exist, and without other evidence to the contrary, I am more inclined to support Joseph Gillow who wrote that it was never published (Gil/ow. I, p. 323). Born in 1775, Nightingale established his reputation as a prolific writer of miscellaneous books. He became a Methodist in 1796, but switched to Unitarianism in 1804 and embraced Methodism again just before his death in 1824. See DNB, XIV, pp. 510-511.
"BAA, C1938, Berington to Kirk, 11 January l8l3 OJ, XII, December 1830, p.454.
85 exercise of universal Theo-Political Rights', by becoming a forum for rational and enlightened
debate between representatives of both sides.' But it also demonstrated a propensity to
counter, without compromise, defamatory attacks on itself and the Catholic community. The
moderate Catholic controversialist and priest, John Fletcher, 2 had earlier said that Catholics
were obliged to vindicate themselves against scurrilous attack and, consistent with this, the
Catholic Magazine and Review maintained Janson's commitment to protect Catholicism from
intolerant Protestants. 3 It was therefore deemed to be valid for an essentially conciliatory
publication to criticise allegedly libellous periodicals like the monthly Methodist Magazine
which had provocatively derided the Catholic Magazine and Review and its campaign for
religious emancipation.4 Fletcher had stipulated, however, that the most productive form of
controversial engagement, which effectively instructed ignorance and enlightened prejudice,
avoided the 'indelicacy of insult; the exacerbation of reproach, and all the mean artifices of
insincerity', being defined instead by the temperance and candour with which it was conducted. 5 These virtues were lacking, however, in the Catholic Magazine ana Review's description of the Methodist Magazine as a gross disseminator of 'nonsense, falsehood and blasphemy'.6
The Catholic Board, recognising that this illiberal and uncharitable outburst did not comply with the desired spirit of conciliation whith it maintained was the key to achieve emancipation, responded unfavourably. At a hastily convened meeting on 9 February, it formally
'Prefatory Advertisement', Catholic Magazine and Review, January 1813.
2 Born in 1766, Fletcher was educated at Douay and Paris. Imprisoned in France in 1793, he returned to England in 1795 and was ordained at York. Fletcher then worked successively as missioner at Hexham, Blackburn, Weston Underwood and Leamington. In 1821. Pius VII conferred the degree of Doctor of Divinity on him. His last appointment came in 1844 when he was sent to Northampton where he died in 1848. See Gillow, II, pp. 298-300; Anstruther, Seminary Priests, IV, pp. 103-104.
John Fletcher, Reflections on the Spirit, &c. &c. of Religious Controversy (London, 1804), p. v.
Methodist Magazine, XXXV, December 1812. pp. 917-930 and XXXVI, March 1813, pp. 228-233; Catholic Magazine and Review, January 1813, pp. 20-23; February 1813, pp. 91-94. , The Methodist Magazine, the direct descendant of John Wesley's Arminian Magazine (1778-1797), was typical of wider Methodist resistance to Catholic claims for emancipation. For a detailed examination of the antagonistic relationship between the two denominations, see David l-Iempton, Methodism and Politics in British Society, 1750-1 850 (London, 1984). Chapter Five.
Fletcher, op. cit., p. iii.
6 Catholic Magazine and Review, January 1813, p. 21.
86 reprimanded the proprietors of the Catholic Magazine and Review. The editor of the
Methodist Magazine, Joseph Benson, was informed of the Board's dissatisfaction with the
Catholic Maga:ine and Review the next day in a letter personally written by Edward
Jerriingham:
I am directed, by the General Board of the Catholics of England, to transmit to you, the enclosed copy of their 8tb Resolution, unanimously passed yesterday.. .That we have lately seen, with regret, certain publications bearing the Titles of Catholic Magazines; which appellation appears to us calculated to mislead the Public into the mistake of supposing the same to express the sentiments of the Roman Catholics in general, and to be sanctioned even by them: Whereas, we have no concern whatsoever, in the publications at present in circulation assuming that name; and we decidedly disapprove of every publication, by any real or pretended Catholic, either illiberal in language, or uncharitable in substance; injurious to the character, or offensive to the just feelings of any of our Christian brethren, with all whom the Roman Catholics of England sincerely wish to procure harmony and mutual good will, in the spirit of Christian charity.'
Contrary to this statement, however, the censure did not constitute a permanent breach
between the Catholic Board and the Catholic Magazine and Review, as both continued to
share a concern for, and involvement in, the campaign for relief. They were also united in their
dependency on Butler who was drawing up a new Relief Bill on the Board's behalf at the same time that he was managing the Catholic Magazine and Review.
By late April, the legislation had been drafted and, in its original format, made identical demands to those in the petition of 1809, without offering in return any major concession.2
Introduced to the House of Commons on 30 April, the Bill successfully went through its first reading, instilling among the leadership of the Catholic Board a strong belief that a satisfactory end to the struggle for emancipation was at hand. George Canning, however, was not so optimistic: on 11 May, he tried to quell any parliamentary opposition to the Bill by proposing that certain securities be inserted. The formation of two commissions, for England and Ireland respectively, was advocated, each to be dominated by lay Catholics. They were intended to uphold the suggested Crown prerogatives of veto and exequatur, being invested with the
'Methodist Magazine, XXX VI, March 1813, p. 233. See 2atholic Magazine and Review, March 1813, pp. 133-136.
2 The whole of the following section is based on Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, II, pp. 23-56.
87 authority to advise the monarch on suitable candidates to episcopal vacancies, as well as to scrutinise papal bulls and dispensations to ensure their neutrality on political affairs.
When publicised, these clauses were denounced by Milner, and in his hastily produced Brief
Memorial on the Catholic Bill, he placed the blame for them squarely on Butler's shoulders, restating his objections to any concession which subjugated ecclesiastical authority to a secular or Protestant agency. Butler replied with a rebuttal in an untitled fly-leaf which urged
Parliament to allow the legislature to -'proceed in its progress of benevolent concession, regardless of interference of unaccredited individuals'.' But Milner's objections had already awakened an awareness that the Relief Bill was not universally accepted and Butler's efforts were therefore in vain. Doubts about the efficacy of the legislation were evidenced on 24 May when a small majority in the Commons voted to omit the clause which, if retained, might have granted to Catholics the right to sit and vote in Parliament. The motion for amendment had been proposed by the Speaker of the House of Commons, Charles Abbott, who opposed giving this power to Catholics, subjects of a foreign potentate. In arguing his case, Abbott referred directly to Milner's Brief Memorial as evidence that, if introduced unaltered, the Bill would exacerbate rather than resolve existing discord. After the result was confirmed, George
Ponsonby, the leader of the Opposition in the Commons and chairman of the committee responsible for promoting the Relief Bill, stated that the decision to excise the clause had rendered the legislation inoperable and he therefore called for it to be abandoned.
The immediate result of this decision was the ultimate act of divorce between Mimer and the
Catholic Board. Charging Milner with having sabotaged the Relief Bill, the Board inflicted vengeance on 29 May by expelling him from its executive commiitee, to which he had belonged since February. The events of May 1813 also left an immediate indelible impression on the English Catholic periodical press. They certainly had a negative effect on the proprietors of the Catholic Magazine and Review who decided to end the publication at once.
However, in another respect, and in conjunction with individual enterprise, the failure of the
Relief Bill gave Catholic journalism its most important boost, enabling a regular Catholic
'Cited Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, II, p. 44.
88 periodical press to flourish permanently in England under the guidance of a journalist and printer from Norfolk, William Eusebius Andrews.
89 Chapter Three
Emancipation (1813-1830)
In the first decade or so of the nineteenth century, the English Catholic periodical press had
not enjoyed sustained success. This was partly because it had lacked the resilience to survive
the Catholic community's failure to win emancipation and also because it had not been
managed by professional journalists and editors. Catholic journalism had very much been an
amateur affair for priests and gentlemen' to air their views, and for printers and publishers to
make a little money, but in order to flourish it really needed firm guidance from a trained
journalist. The man who eventually gave the English Catholic periodical press this support was
William Eusebius Andrews who, born in Norwich on 15 December 1773 to Catholic-convert
parents, had been learning 'all the tricks and machinery of the public press' since the age of
fifteen when he began working for a local newspaper, the Norfolk Chronicle.' Andrews'
journalistic work also introduced him to politics and he took a strong interest in events in
France. Many of his colleagues were 'imbued with the most violent party feelings' 2 and
supported the French Revolution, but Andrews saw that it was a 'total subversion of the
principles of Religion and Liberty' and condemned the 'horrible outrages committed under the
guise of freedom'.3 However, any political or religious differences that Andrews might have
had with the mainly Protestant staff at the Norfolk Chronicle did not hinder his career and he
was made editor of this work about 1799.
Fourteen years later, having established his reputation in Norwich as a formidable defender of
Catholicism, Andrews suddenly moved with his wife and children to London with the hope of
trading as an independent religious publisher and bookseller. He later explained his motive for
giving up a 'permanent and responsible situation': 'About the latter end of the year 1812 1
Quotation from Truthteller, XIV, 25 Aprit 1829, p. 570. For full biographical details, see Of, VIII, May 1820, pp. 204-212 and XII, October 1830, pp. 365-377; LDOJ, IV, 22 April 1837, pp. 244-247; Gillow, 1, pp. 43-52; Edwin H. Burton, 'A Pioneer of Catholic Journalism: William Eusebius Andrews (1773-1837)', Ushaw Magazine, Xl, December 1901, pp. 201-211; Brian Carter, 'Controversy and Conciliation in the English Catholic Enlightenment, 1790-1840', Enlightenment and Dissent, VII, 1988, pp. 12 fT.
2 Of, VII, December 1819, p. 443.
Truthieller, XIV, 25 April 1829, p. 570.
90 became acquainted with a person engaged in circulating catholic works in numbers, who
represented to me the great inconvenience that was felt by the public from there being only one
catholic printer in the metropolis, and the excellent chance which then offered, to a person of
an enterprising mind, of succeeding in establishing himself in a concern of this nature'.' On
arriving in London on 2 May 1813, however, Andrews found that his business partner could
not fulfil promises that had been made and he was left entirely to his own devices in a place
where he had no friends or contacts.
Far from being daunted by the 'unpleasant circumstances'2 in which he found himself,
Andrews quickly obtained an interview with the 'secretary of the self-named board', 3 Edward
Jerningham,4 offering to publish materials for him. Convinced, however, that the Relief Bill
would pass safely through Parliament, Jçrningham told Andrews that there would be 'little or
no printing to be done' and rejected his approach. While he could only accept this decision,
Andrews replied that he was not so sure that the Relief Bill would succeed, believing that the
'time was not yet arrived when our wishes were to be completed'. 5 This prediction, of course,
was accurate and on 16 June, Andrews marked the Catholic Board's failed attempt to obtain
qualified emancipation, and also showed his anger at its treatment of Milner, by issuing a
prospectus for the Orthodox Journal and Monthly Catholic Intelligencer. The magazine, which inaugurated a new era of sustained Catholic literary productivity, was designed to represent and protect the rights of the priesthood, as the advertisement made clear:
Every sincere professor of the catholic faith must have witnessed, with the deepest anguish and regret, the late attempt to degrade and persecute that highly meritorious and self-denying body of men, the catholic clergy of these realms, by the intolerant ecclesiastical clauses introduced into the late (improperly called) catholic relief bill. No measure ever proposed by the weakest of statesmen was less likely to accomplish the object it professed to attain; and no measure was ever more repugnant to the true spirit of our excellent constitution. By the great charter of our liberties it is declared, that the election of bishops shall be free; and yet in this enlightened age - in this 'new era' - when we are ever boasting of our great liberality and freedom,
'01, VIII. May 1820, p. 204.
2 Truth/el/er, 1, 24 December 1825, p. 407.
Of, VIII, May 1820, p.204.
And not Charles Butler, as Brian Carter writes ('Controversy and Conciliation', p. 13).
01, VIII, May 1820, pp. 204-205.
91 we have witnessed the introduction of a bill into the house of commons, under the sanction of those who call themselves 'the friends of civil and religious liberty', which, had it passed into a law, would have deprived the catholic clergy of the benefit of that constitution, to the establishment of which they were so instrumental.. .To such arbitrary laws as these against their clergy it is hoped the great body of catholics will never silently submit, nor suffer their complaints to be stifled by interested individuals. In order to afford them this opportunity, and to enable them to discuss the merits of emancipation upon the catholic principles of Truth and Unity, this work is offered for their support and patronage. Its object is to conciliate by conviction; not to divide by improper concessions.
It was evident that the Orthodox Journal, which first circulated later that same month, was also
intended by Andrews to serve as a battering ram against the Catholic Board for pouring, as he
wrote, 'more disgrace upon the Catholic name, by [its] casuistical policy, than all the calumnies raised against it by our enemies since the Reformation'.2
Thinking that the Orthodox Journal would increase tensions within the English Catholic community and agitate anti-Catholic feeling among Protestants, established booksellers refused at the outset to help in either its production or distribution. Typical of their reaction was George Keating who privately remonstrated with Andrews that the intended temper and tone of the Orthodox Journal would produce 'fatal impressions and prejudices',3 and advised him to stop writing and concentrate instead on printing and publishing. 4 But Andrews ignored
Keating and kick-started the Orthodox Journal with a vituperative critique of the late Relief
Bill. In analysing this 'hateful and impolitic' measure, Andrews showed his contempt for the
Catholic Board which he blamed for the schismatic veto and exequalur. Regarding it as the result of clandestine negotiations between an unrepresentative gathering of self-seeking
Catholic aristocrats and Protestant politicians, Andrews denounced the Relief Bill: he wrote that it had been devised by 'distempered brains' under the guise of compromise and conciliation to oppress the clergy. Andrews celebrated the rejection of this hypocrisy and
l 0.1. VIII. October 1820. p. 374.
2 Ibid, I. October 1813. p. 173.
('atholicon. III. November 1816. p. 192.
Of, VIII, May 1820. p. 205.
92 prescribed the full and unconditional repeal of religious disabilities for layman and priest alike
as the only solution to the Catholic question.'
It is testament to Andrews' audacity that, when the Orthodox Journal was first issued, he again
approached Jerningham to ask for his support. Whereas before he had been received in the
'most courteous and gentlemanly manner',2 on this occasion Andrews was lashed for
publishing hostile comments about the Relief Bill. Jerningham realised that Andrews could
harm the Catholic Board and its plans for emancipation and left him in no doubt, if Andrews'
account is to be believed, as to what would happen if he continued the Orthodox Journal: 'I
was abused for daring to publish my own opinions without consulting my ecclesiastical
superiors and the board secretary; and I was threatened with ruin, for setting myself in
opposition to the noblemen and gentlemen composing the society he acted for. The secretary
told me personally that he should do me all the injury he could'. 3 These apparently were not
idle threats: when Andrews showed no sign of conceding, Jerningham began a covert
campaign of 'bullying & threatening & cajoling' 4 to persuade his customers to abandon him. A
few months after Andrews started the Orthodox Journal, a Catholic priest who had hired
Andrews to print handbills to publicise a charity sermon withdrew his business after being
warned by an 'active member of the board' that it would no longer support his church unless
he did so.5
Notwithstanding these impediments, Andrews continued the Orthodox Journal, inspired by the
praise that the first issue received from 'many of the first divines of our church'. 6 Most vociferous in his approval was Milner who saluted Andrews for producing a work of
'undeniable ability, orthodoxy, and independency', 7 and encouraged other priests, including
Of, 1, June 1813, pp. 1-12. Quotations from p. 11.
2 Ibid.. VIII, May 1820, p. 204.
Ibid.. p. 206.
' AAW, PP. A58, Milnerto John Griffiths, 10 October 1813.
Of, VIII. May 1820, p.206.
Ibid, p. 205.
Ibid., I, August 1813, p. 93.
93 Charles Plowden, to subscribe. 1 Promising to contribute original papers, Milner urged
Andrews to ignore the obloquy poured on him by members of the Catholic Board and print any articles and letters that they sent to the Orthodox Journal. In giving this advice, however,
Mimer did not want the Orthodox Journal to host genteel debates which led to peaceful resolutions. Instead, he wanted it to be an organ of combat, the main purpose of which would be to promote Ultramontanism through direct confrontation with willing opponents.
As the avowed advocate of orthodoxy, Andrews was willing to sacrifice Cisalpine correspondents to the redoubtable Milner, and he was doubtless alive to the commercial advantages of opening the Orthodox Journal to a wider subscription, particularly as it had no direct competitor at this time. But not all enlightened and liberal Catholics were guaranteed admission to the Orthodox Journal. Andrews stopped Joseph Berington from having two articles, written under the pseudonym of 'A Friend to Truth', published in the number for
October 181 32 Both contributions were rejected because they dared to calumniate Milner, portraying him as a despot who, controlled by a 'love of strife', considered conciliation to be the 'mere pliancy of weakness'. Berington wrote that Milner had abused his position to start unnecessary quarrels and had become an unwanted embarrassment to the English Catholic community:
Provoked by his misjudging & intemperate conduct, the Catholic Board was compelled to suspend all intercourse with him; while others, who, from some motives of decorum, had hitherto stood by him, turned aside, & blushed. But Catholic Ireland, with her bishops, upholds him. On this he rests; & prompted by the support, we have with anguish beheld him pouring out low & vulgar abuse, against men of high respectability... What the Irish can see in him to admire; what their bishops - modest & conciliating as they are - to applaud, an English Catholic does not conjecture, unless it be, that, as exasperation has soured the good nature of the former, & the latter, it is feared, permit themselves to be.influenced by violent men - they both, in the contentious spirit of our prelate, view something that accords with their present temper. Take him to themselves they may. They have vacant sees; & his Lordship would not refuse to be translated from the infidel Castabala to the Catholic Tuam.3 l ABSI. ML, II, 50, Milnerto Charles Plowden, 25 August 1813; 51, Milnerto Rev Mr Dunn, 8 October 1813.
2 The original drafts, both headed 'To The Editor of The Orthodox Journal', are enclosed within BAA, C2154, Berington to James Archer, 30 September 1813 and C1981, Berington to Archer, 10 October 1813. Berington had entrusted James Archer, the celebrated Catholic sermonist, with the task of making copies of his letters to send to Andrews, the intention being to safeguard his anonymity.
Ibid.
94 So engulfed was Mimer in his 'ruling passion', Berington continued, that 'could he not
quarrel, & abuse, & censure, & disturb the peace of others, life for him would have no relish'.
In conclusion, Berington wrote, now was the time to 'attempt to check the desperate career of
a man, whom Irish praise has intoxicated; who brings disgrace on his holy office; & whom our
long forbearance has rendered only more vain & more presumptuous'.'
As personal and unrelenting as Berington's critique of Mimer was, Andrews could not have
afforded it space in the Orthodox Journal without displeasing his most important patron, as
had happened to Baldwin Janson. 2 This denied Berington the opportunity to defend himself
from recent comments by Mimer. In an unpublished pastoral of 30 March 1813, Mimer had
poured opprobrium on The Faith of Catholics, a compilation of antique materials produced by
Berington with John Kirk's help. 4 Milner objected to this work because it was essentially a
new and expanded version of the seventeenth-century tract, Roman Catholick Principles in
Reference to God and the King. Contrary to his earlier opinion, expressed in the Gentleman '5
Magazine in 1788, that this work was a useful tool for developing relations with Protestants
which 'differs in nothing from the famous exposition of Bossuet, or the decision of the Council
of Trent',5 Mimer now considered it 'heterodox and schismatical',6 condemning it outright as
an unsound and inauthoritative embodiment of false precepts.
A Whitby-based French émigré priest, Nicholas Gilbert, 7 shared Berington's opposition to
Mimer's remarks. Preserving his anonymity through the conceit that he was 'The Ghost' of the
BAA, C1981, Berington to Archer, 10 October 1813.
2 See above, p. 84.
BAA, R212, John Milner, 'A Pastoral Charge, Addressed to the Catholic Clergy of the Midland District. Part II. On the Doctrine of the Catholic Church'.
"Joseph Berington and John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, Confirmed By Scripture, and Attested By the Fathers of the Five First Centuries of the Church (London, 1813).
GM, LVIII, December 1788. p. 1156. See above, p. 65.
6 BAA. R212, Mimer, op. cit., p. 2. Born in 1762 and ordained in 1785, Gilbert fled to England from Revolutionary France. He settled at Whitby where there were only a few Catholics, but by the time he returned to France in 1815, after the restoration of Louis XVIII. Whitby boasted a 'flourishing congregation' (CM, 1, January 1822, p. 17). Gilbert died in 1821. See W.J. Nicholson, 'Nicholas Alain Gilbert, French emigré priest, 1762-1821', Northern Catholic History, XII, 1980, pp. 19-22 and p. 32; Dominic Aidan Bellenger, The French Exiled Clergy in the British Isles after 1789 (Bath, 1986), pp. 56-5 7.
95 author of the Principles, Gilbert made a stringent defence of the work and its incorporation into The Faith of Catholics which, because it did not attack Mimer directly, was printed in the
Orthodox Journal.' Gilbert's comments at first provoked no response from Mimer who told
Kirk of his regret that 'Mr Berington & his friends have carried a religious business which I had confined to the clergy, before the tribunal of the public in the Orthodox Journal'; and although he felt 'provoked & thwarted in the discharge of my official duty', Milner at first resolved to 'take as little notice as I can of the matter in question'. 2 However, after Gilbert's renewed attempt to assert the authority and orthodoxy of the Principles in January 18i4,
Milner joined the debate to contest his ascription of the treatise to John Gother, the 'principal
Catholic controversialist during the reign of James il',4 who had inserted the Principles in the first edition of his A Papist Misrepresented. Milner countered this by pointing out that
Gilbert's reasoning hinged on A Papist Misrepresented having first appeared in 1685, but to his knowledge there was an edition dated twenty years before on display at Keating, Brown and Keating's shop.5
Kirk entered the fray at this stage in the controversy. Butler had suggested that he write a historical account of the Principles for the Gentleman's Magazine. 6 Kirk mentioned this idea to Berington who replied that the 'unpublished Pastoral of Castabala would soon be buried in oblivion, & that it would be better to drop the subject'. 7 However, the appearance in the
Orthodox Journal of Mimer's letter, 'full, as usual, of inaccuracies, & misrepresentations',8 persuaded Kirk that something had to be done. He therefore sent Andrews an article which showed conclusively that both Milner and Gilbert had been wrong in their facts about the
Of. 1, September 1813, pp. 135-141.
2 BAA, C1983, Milnerto Kirk, 13 October 1813.
of, II, January 1814, pp. 17-20. Gilbert signed this paperas 'N.G.'.
"Gillow, II, p.541.
Of, ii, February 1814, pp. 54-56.
6 Kirk soon acted on Butler's idea by publishing Roman-Catholick Principles in Reference to God and the King. First Published in the Year 1680. To Which is Prefixed An Inquiry Respecting the Editions and the Author of that Valuable Tract (London, 1815).
BAA, C202 1, Kirk to Butler, 21 March 1814.
8 Ibid.
96 Principles.' Kirk demonstrated that Gother's A Papist Misrepresented had indeed first
appeared in 1685, the copy referred to by Mimer bearing a printing error, and that, contrary to
Gilbert's thesis, the Principles had beenwritten in 1680 by James Maurus Corker, one of the
three Benedictines acquitted with Sir George Wakeman of conspiring to kill Charles 11.2
Seeing that his argument against Gilbert was severely faulted, Mimer retired from the 'field
rather awkwardly'.3 Gilbert, on the other hand, graciously accepted Kirk's corrections, but
tried to continue the discussion in the Orthodox Journal with an essay justifying the
Principles. He was only prevented from doing so by Andrews who not only feared 'giving
offence to Dr M[ilner]',4 but was anxious to turn the Orthodox Journal's attention towards
more pressing current political developments.
In May 1809, the Papal States had again been taken over by the French, after Pius VII refused
to join an alliance against England. The Pope and the cardinals of the Curia were arrested and
taken to France, where they remained for the next five years, 5 and during their exile business in
Rome was managed by Monsignor Giovanni Quarantotti, the octogenarian Vice-Prefect of
Propaganda. Quarantotti was approached late in 1813 by Paul Macpherson, the English
bishops' agent at Rome and President of the Scots' College. He had received letters that summer from William Poynter, Douglass' successor as Vicar Apostolic of the London District, calling for guidance from the Holy See as to what should be done if the late Relief Bill was reintroduced to Parliament during the next session and asking whether English Catholics could accept the clauses of veto and exequatur. Macpherson presented to Quarantotti the case for accepting the Relief Bill in 10(0, pointing out, that the Holy See would earn the British government's much-needed support if it favoured this legislation. Macpherson also argued that
Quarantotti had to respond immediately; any delay would be dangerous, he said, because the
Relief Bill would probably be reintroduced soon, and therefore a decision could not be
Of, II. March 1814, pp. 110-115. Kirk signed his article as 'S'. Proof of Kirk's authorship is given in BAA, C2060, Nicholas Gilbert to Kirk, 22 November 1814.
2 See above. p. 34.
BAA, C2060, Gilbert to Kirk, 22 November 1814.
' Ibid.
Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, I, pp. -222-223 and 11, p. 71.
97 deferred until Pius VII returned to Rome. Quarantotti gathered together a special congregation
in February 1814 which decided that Catholics 'ought to receive and embrace with content and
gratitude the Law which was proposed last year for their emancipation',' and expressed a hope
that the British government would help the Pope reclaim the Papal States and return him and
the exiled cardinals to Rome.
This information, contained in two documents known as the Quarantotti Rescripts, was
personally carried to Poynter in England by Macpherson.2 Poynter accepted Quarantotti's
decision about the Relief Bill. The first Rescript, which approved this legislation, was then
translated into English, printed in the leading papers, and copies of it were sent by Poynter to
all the bishops in England and Ireland. Although the news was welcomed by vetoists, the
Rescript angered advocates of unconditional emancipation, particularly in Ireland. Edmund
Derry, Bishop of Dromore, repeating what the Bishops of Cloyne and Killaloe had already
said, told Poynter that the Rescript was 'absolutely unnecessary at present, and mischievous in
its consequences'.3 Derry observed that the veto had been called for by the government
because it feared that, without some control over the Catholic Church in England and Ireland,
Napoleon would influence the bishops through Pius VII. But this was no longer possible
because, since the Quarantotti Rescripts had been drafted, Napoleon had abdicated as Emperor
and retired to Elba, the French monarchy under Louis XVIII and the Bourbons had been
restored, and the Pope and cardinals had been set free and were now on their way back to
Rome. Of the members of the Irish episcopate, only John Troy, Archbishop of Dublin,
conceded that the Rescripts were valid. He wrote to Milner on 3 May, telling him that the
Catholic community had to 'make a virtue of necessity, and respectfully submit, and endeavour
to make the best bargain' it could. 4 Milner's feelings on the matter, however, were more in
Cited Of, II, May 1814, p. 163.
2 For a full account of the history of the Quarantotti Rescripts, see Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, II, pp. 71-84.
Cited Of, II. May 1814, p. 193.
Cited Ward, op. cit.. p. 88.
98 accord with those of Derry, and he immediately decided to make the dangerous journey to
Rome through war-torn Europe to appeal personally against the first Rescript to Pius VII.'
In Milner's absence, the opposition to the first Quarantotti Rescript in England was led by
Andrews. Representing 'those who love the purity and independence of the Ministers of their
Religion, in the preference to the gaining a few empty titles and temporal privileges', he
described it as an 'unjust and indecent attempt to controul [our] civil rights, (over which
neither M. Quarantotti, nor Pope, nor Prelate, has any authority) and an apparent surrender of
the government of the Catholic Church in these islands into the hands of its bitterest enemies'.2
Andrews followed this somewhat paradoxical attack from an Ultramontane on papal authority
by berating Quarantotti for interfering in British political affairs with a pronouncement that
jarred on major English and Irish Catholic opinion, and which in any case he had not had the
authority to make.3 In contrast, however, Andrews did not castigate Poynter, the original
recipient and distributor of the Quarantotti Rescript, because he was determined to apportion
the greatest blame to the Catholic Board, holding it responsible for circulating the document
before the English bishops had had the opportunity to meet and discuss the matter. 4 Having
procured a copy of the Rescript, Andrews argued, the Catholic Board had publicised it to
deceive society into believing that its conciliatory schemes had been endorsed at the highest
level.5 But, Andrews forecast, the Board could not succeed because the document had not
received the Pope's approval and, he confidently stated, this was unlikely: as Milner had
informed him, the appeal to Pius VII was 'proceeding in a very favourable way' and opinion in
Rome was on their side.6
'Husenbeth, John Mimer, pp. 27 1-272.
2 0f, II, May 1814. p. 161.
3 lbid.,June 1814.p.2O9andp.2l3.
' The Vicars Apostolic, apart from Milner who was abroad, met at Durham late in June when they gave their assent to the Quarantotti Rescripts (Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, II, pp. 96-98).
0.1, II. August 1814, p. 298 September 1814, pp. 338-339.
6 Ibid., p. 339.
99 Milner's news coincided with an unconfirmed report that the Orthodox Journal had been
reprobated at Rome for having 'done more harm to religion than any other publication'.' This
rumour, Andrews said, had been engineered by the 'Blue Book gentlemen' of the Catholic
Board: 'Mortified at the failure of their efforts to suppress my work, and fretting and foaming with anger at the probability of seeing themselves discomfitted, by the voice of public opinion', he wrote, 'my opponents have now recourse to another stratagem, and they think to put an extinguisher over me, by the aid of the spiritual power'. 2 However, Andrews was not concerned and boasted that he was supported by the Irish bishops, one of whom had recently praised his 'very able and spirited exertions in the Orthodox Journal, in opposition to the torrent of calumnious misrepresentation which now bursts from the bigotted presses of the empire'.3 In any case, Andrews thought that he was beyond Rome's reach because, as far as he was concerned, the Orthodox Journal had supported nothing other than true Catholic doctrine, and if it was his politics that the Catholic Board found unsavoury, it knew 'very well that
Rome has no more authority over them than the Ottoman Porte'.4
Andrews certainly believed that the Catholic Board had sent private letters to his subscribers stating that the Orthodox Journal had been denounced by the Holy See, 5 but he failed to consider that he also had enemies in the priesthood who opposed his brand of journalism as much as the Catholic gentry and aristocracy. John Bew was repulsed by the Orthodox Journal which he believed was 'nothing but a party engine - calculated, or at least intended, to spread dissension in England, - & banish peace, & common sense from among us', and even saw it as the first effort of the Jesuits 'struggling again into life'. 6 In an attempt to damage its sales, Bew had resorted to warning his congregation in Brighton to disavow this rabble-rousing paper,
Of, Il, December 1814, p. 484. -
2 Ibid.
Ibid.
' Ibid.
5 /bid., IV, December 1816, p. 475.
6 Dissolved in 1773 by Clement XIV, the Society of Jesus wasrestored in 1814 with the bull Sollicitudo Omnium Ecciesiarum. However, it was not until January 1829 that the Jesuits were formally reconstituted in England. See below, p. 144.
100 assuring those who read it that they were unqualified to consider the issues it tackled. 'Though it be common it is not very reasonable to take fire in a cause they do not understand', Bew explained to John Kirk: 'Suppose the flames are breaking out in the Houses let those who are skilled in the business direct the engines - the clatter of an ignorant mob, will only increase the confusion & prevent the effect of the Remedies'.' But the difficulty facing Bew and others like him was that they could not offer their congregations an alternative to Andrews' fiery and intolerant periodical. Their only hope at the end of 1814 was that Keating, Brown and Keating would soon fulfil a recent promise to produce a 'New Catholic Magazine, Under the Title of
The Publicist'.2
The opposition to Andrews had some impact on his finances, and to prevent the Orthodox
Journal from suffering a premature death before the new year, he was forced to accept a 'truly beneficial loan' from John Quick, the newly-appointed President of Oscott College. 3 This was not enough, however, to allow Andrews to pay his bills and he had to borrow £100 from Jane
Wheble, an elderly widow who had lived at Milner's house at Wolverhampton since his appointment as Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District in 1803. Mrs Wheble was approached on Andrews' behalf by John Perry, Milner's Vicar General, and her loan allowed Andrews to pay his paper merchants. 4 It also enabled him to take a more belligerent stance towards the vetoists by rallying over six thousand people, 'among whom are several of the most eminent of the Clergy, many gentlemen of independent property, and a great number of the most respectable merchants and tradesmen', 5 to sign a petition for unqualified relief which was presented to the government in May 1815. The petition acted as an 'official instrument demonstrating the sentiments of the Catholics of England to be in unison with those of Ireland, and that the Emancipation which they desire is a full, free, and unrestricted enjoyment of civil
'BAA, C2090, Bew to Kirk, 27 February 1815.
2 Laity's Directory(1815).
BAA, C2144, William Eusebius Andrews to John Quick, 6 April 1816. Quick was born in 1777 and, educated at Oscott, was ordained in 181 I. He died in 1818. See Fitzgerald-Lombard, p. 149.
' BAA, RI 10, Rev John Perry to Mrs Jane Whebie. 3 May 1815; Ri 11, Andrews to Wheble, 8 May 1815;R112,AndrewstoWheble.9May 1815.
Of, Ill, May 1815. p. 165.
101 rights in common with their Protestant fellow-subjects, unaccompanied by vetoistical
arrangements for their Clergy'.' It also sent a clear message to the Holy See: a special
congregation appointed by Pius VII had considered the Quarantotti Rescript and in April the
Prefect of Propaganda, Cardinal Laurence Litta, decided that Rome would allow a
governmental veto over the appointment of bishops, while rejecting the exequatur.2
Parliament resisted Andrews' agitation and again overwhelmingly opposed emancipation in
June.3 The campaign for the total abolition of anti-Catholic laws received another blow later in
the year when reports of a Catholic persecution of Huguenots at NImes and Avignon in
southern France were spread in the popular press by English Protestant propagandists who
cited this as an example of Catholic intolerance. The stories of Catholic atrocities were
exaggerated and did not point out that the Huguenots had been the original aggressors. Also,
as Bernard Ward said, the riots were asmuch about politics as religion: the Huguenots were
long-standing allies of the Bonapartists and were therefore angry about the restoration of the
Catholic Bourbons; the bad-feeling between the Huguenots and Catholics grew after Napoleon
escaped from Elba in March 1815 and again when he was finally defeated in June at Waterloo,
before erupting in wanton violence.4
At Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 27 December, representatives of the major Catholic families of
Northumberland and Durham secretly met to condemn the violence against the Huguenots and to state that Catholics were committed to universal religious liberty. Led by George Silvertop,5 the member of the Catholic Board who had moved for Milner to be expelled from its executive committee in May 18 13,6 the meeting resulted in the passing of eleven resolutions, the first and
'OJ, III, May 1815, pp. 165-166.
2 See Ward, Eve of Cat ho/ic Emancipation, II, pp. 135-154 for discussion of Litta's 'Genoese Letter', the contents of which were not made public for some months. ft was so-called because it was written in Genoa where the Pope and his court had fled to after the Neapolitans advanced on Rome in March.
Ibid., p. 140.
' Ibid., p. 236.
Silvertop. of Minsteracres in Northumberland, was born in January 1775 and educated at Douay. He was a founding member of the Catholic Board and died in February 1849. See Gil/ow, V, pp. 506-507.
6 See above, p. 88.
102 most important of which stated: 'That attached as we are to the Faith of the Catholic Church, we do maintain the right of every individual, in every age and in every country, to judge of the reasonableness of his belief; and we do moreover maintain, that no man can be deprived of this sacred, inalienable right, without injustice or oppression'.' After the meeting, between thirty and forty of those in attendance dined at the Queen's Head tavern where the toast of 'Civil and
Religious Liberty all over the world' was made and the festivities went on to a late hour.2 Well might the 'Northern Silver Lights', as Andrews named them, 3 have rejoiced at their attempt to appease Protestant society: their 'liberal and benevolent sentiments'4 were quickly applauded by the Foreign Secretary, Lord Castlereagh, in a letter to Silvertop of 5 January 1816, and at the end of the month the Catholic Board offered its own vote of thanks.
Andrews was less appreciative. He suspected that the meeting of the 'Northern Silver Lights' had been arranged by the Catholic Board: it had conducted its business away from London and late in the month to prevent him from commenting on the resolutions immediately, thinking that the next number of the Orthodox Journal would appear before he had the chance to do so.
The Catholic Board would have succeeded in thwarting Andrews had details of the meeting not appeared early in January in the London press. 5 His belief that the Catholic Board had nearly prevented him from reporting the Newcastle Declaration showed Andrews that he needed to establish a 'weekly newspaper on Catholic principles'6 to accompany the Orthodox
Journal. Therefore, early in 1816, he contacted leading English and Irish clergy, offering them shares in 'a well-conducted vehicle of intelligence, calculated to circulate among persons of all persuasions, but whose fundamental objects should be the Vindication of Truth, and consequently the exposing such calumnies as may be raised against the professors of the
Cited Of, IV, January 1816, p. 28.
2 Ibid., p. 30.
Ibid., p. 28.
Cited ibid., p. 32.
Ibid., February 1816, p. 44.
6 BAA. C2144. Andrews to Quick, 6 April 1816.
103 Catholic Faith, and the precepts and principles of that Holy Religion'.' Mimer and another
twenty individuals offered to buy shares n the work, but this was not enough and Andrews was
unable to issue a weekly complement to the Orthodox Journal at this time.
The first resolution of the Newcastle Declaration became a subject of heated debate in the
Orthodox Journal, showing that English Catholics were still beset with the same crisis of
authority that had caused so much trouble in the last decade of the eighteenth century.2 In the
issue for January 1816, Andrews objected that the 'Northern Silver Lights' had undermined
the infallible spiritual authority of the Roman Catholic Church with their emphasis on private
judgement. He said that no Catholic had the right to judge the 'reasonableness of his creed': a
person could only 'exercise his reason as to which Church possesses the promises of Christ;
but having convinced himself of that, he must then submit his reason to the precepts of that
church, which can neither add nor diminish to the truths communicated to her by the Holy
Spirit'.3 As far as Andrews was concerned, the display of pernicious liberalism from the
'Northern Silver Lights' was merely intended to ease their way into the 'temple of the
constitution'.4
Andrews was supported by other Ultramontanes and they were given ample space in the
Orthodox Journal.5 At the head of this group was Milner: 6 he was forced to write under the
three pseudonyms of 'Pastorini', 'Consistency' and 'A Priest of the Old School' to hide his
identity because, while visiting Rome, some of his articles had been brought to the notice of
Propaganda, possibly by Poynter who was there at the same time. Cardinal Litta advised
Milner that it was 'beneath the dignity of a Bishop to appear so often in print with his own
'BAA, C2l44, Andrews to Quick, 6 April 1816.
2 Chinnici, English Catholic Enlightenment, p. 42 and pp. 44 iT.
of, iv, January 1816, p. II.
4 lbid., February 1816, p. 49.
Ibid., pp. 54-55 [E.L.J; p. 57 [J.S.]; pp. 60-61 ['A Roman Catholic']; March 1816, pp. 94-97 ['A Catholic Priest of the Old School']; pp. 100-101 ['A Catholic Priest']; August 1816. pp. 305-310 ['A Parish Priest'].
6 Ibid. February 1816. pp. 67-69 ['Pastorini']; March 1816, pp. 98-100 ['Consistency]; August 1816, pp. 312-313 ['A Priest of the Old School'J. For attributions, see Husenbeth, John Mimer. p. 308 and pp. 323-324.
104 signature" and cautioned him against writing so frequently in the Orthodox Journal. Mimer
and his fellow traditionalists regarded any attempt to place subjective judgement above
ecclesiastical rule as anathema to the Catholic religion. Within Catholicism, they collectively
argued, there could be no allowance for individual interpretation regarding the reasonableness
of belief. As Andrews had said, every Catholic was obliged to accept unquestioningly the
Roman Church's teaching on all matters of faith.
In reply, three enlightened Catholics, who believed in the 'integrity of the individual and his
right of conscience, reason and free submission', 2 employed the Orthodox Journal to defend
the orthodoxy of the Newcastle Declaration. 3 It is possible to guess at the identity of the
Cisalpine correspondents. Described by Andrews as 'the Lancashire divine', belonging to the
'Western extremity of the [Northern] district', 4 'Another Catholic Priest' was probably John
Lingard who had moved in 1811 to Honiby in Lancashire. It is likely that Charles Butler wrote
under the pseudonym of 'Clericus'. Mimer certainly insinuated this in August when he described 'Clericus' as a 'certain lawyer'. 5 Milner also gave information about the third defender of the Newcastle Declaration, 'A Catholic Priest', hinting that his first name was
Henry and that he had an 'illustrious uncle' who would have advised him to 'spare no false doctrine, or profane novelty, whether it is broached by a friend or a stranger, whether by a Mr
Silvertop or a Mr Copper-Bottom'.6 This clearly identified the author as Henry Banister, alias
Rutter, chaplain to the Silvertop family at Minsteracres and Robert Banister's nephew.7
Husenbeth, Jo/zn Mimer, p. 322.
2 Chinnici, English C'atholic Enlightenment, p. 44.
oj, iv. February 1816. PP. 57-60 ['A Catholic Priest'J; March 1816, pp. 97-98 [Another Catholic Priest']: July 1816. pp. 277-280 ['Clericus'].
Ibid.. March 1816. p. 81.
Ibid., August 1816. p. 312.
°Ibid., March 1816, p. 98.
Henry Banister was born in 1755 and educated at Douay where he was ordained in 1781. After teaching at St Omer's, he returned to England and was at Minsteracres from 1785 to 1822. Banister then worked at Yealand Conyers in Northumberland, before succeeding his uncle at Dodding Green in 1834. He died in 1838. See Gillow, V. pp. 458-460; Anstruther, Seminary Priests, IV. pp. 16-17.
105 Lingard, Butler and Henry Banister together argued that private reasoning in religious concerns did not undermine the existence of an infallible authority. It did not imply, as
Andrews and his cohorts feared, that an individual would always come into conflict with the
Church, and it did not mean that those who asserted their right to judge of the reasonableness of belief had adopted the Protestant rule of faith. A deliberate and rational examination of the precepts and doctrines on which faith was grounded, they argued, was in fact essential before a person could freely submit himself to the ecclesiastical power. The sad and absurd consequence of disallowing personal judgement, 'Clericus' wrote, would be a Church full of ignorant 'fools and fanatics' standing against the enlightened 'infidels and apostates' without.1
The debate finally ended in August with Mimer giving the final word in a direct reply to
'Clericus', sarcastically advising him that, if he wanted to 'Suit the religious palate of
Protestants', all he now had to do, having already defended the 'Newcastle Blue Book', was
'set aside confession, fasting, and abstinence. ..together with the infallibility of the Church, a thing quite as abominable as the Inquisition itself'. 2 'Clericus' was not afforded the dignity of a response, nor did Andrews conclude the proceedings with a summative editorial: in his opinion, the victory belonged to those contributors who, in eight articles amounting to approximately forty of the fifty pages given to the controversy, had proven the heterodoxy of the Newcastle Declaration. Of course, the imbalance within this debate, heavily weighted against a Cisalpine defence, served as an indictment of Andrews' disregard for impartiality.
The only alternative to the Orthodox Journal at this time was the Catholicon, published by
Keating, Brown and Keating as a balanced monthly source of Catholic intelligence. It had started life in July 1815 as the Publicist, but had been renamed as the Caiholicon the following
January. As its editor, George Keating, explained, the new title conformed to that of the aborted quarterly review planned in I 809 and gave a clearer sense of the work's 'views and objects'.4 The conciliatory Keating was Andrews' opposite in character, as shown by how they
'Of. IV, July 1816, p. 278.
2 Ibid.. August 1816, p. 313.
See above. pp. 79-80.
' Advertisement', Catholicon, I, July-December 1815.
106 both responded to the case of Peter Gandolphy, a junior chaplain at the Spanish Embassy in
London and a devotee of Mimer. Gandolphy had first offended Bishop Poynter in 1812 by publishing a book on liturgy,' which contained theological errors, assimilated Protestant language and made a bogus claim to authority. Late in 1815, Poynter prohibited the sale and distribution of Gandoiphy's books in the London District. Keating obeyed this instruction and stopped selling Gandolphy's writings. Andrews, on the other hand, came out with Milner in support of Gandolphy; he purchased all copies in hand from the author and continued to advertise their sale on the covers of the Orthodox Journal. From September 1816, Andrews also opened his periodical to Gandolphy, whose faculties had been suspended by that time, encouraging him to air his grievances against Poynter, and continued to do so even after Rome vindicated Poynter in July 1818.2 However, Keating was like Andrews inasmuch as he was a
'pronounced Milnerite' 3 and shared his aversion to the veto. Andrews had at first therefore regarded him as a 'confederate in arms'.4 But Keating was unwilling to allow the Catholicon to become a predominantly anti-vetoist organ, as Milner and Andrews discovered.
In June 1816, a 'report on the laws and ordinances existing in foreign States respecting the regulation of their Roman Catholic subjects in ecclesiastical matters, and their intercourse with the see of Rome or any other foreign jurisdiction' 5 was presented to Parliament. The report argued that, because other civil governments exercised a direct or indirect control over the appointment of bishops and regulated the distribution of correspondence from the Holy See, it was not unreasonable for the British authorities to receive similar powers in return for Catholic emancipation. This alarmed Milner and convinced him that the veto would form part of another relief bill. Therefore, under the guise of 'Pastor', he urged Keating to allow him to get
Peter Gandoiphy, Liturgy, or a Book of Common Prayers, and Administration of Sacraments. With Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, For the use of all Christians in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1812).
2 For further discussion of the case of Peter Gandolphy (1779-1821), see CUL, Add. 9418, LP, John Lee to Lingard, 10 and 21 September 1816; UCA, Presidents' Archive, R6, William Poynter, 'To the Roman Catholic Clergy and Laity of the London District', 24 April 1817; Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, 11, pp. 205-220 and pp. 338-340.
3 lbid.,p. 181.
' Of, IV, October 1816, p. 387.
Ward, op. cit.. p. 239.
107 the Catholicon to expose the Catholic Board and its friends in Parliament. Mimer also wanted
to use the periodical 'to justify to the Church of England Protestants our refusal of a Veto; to
unite all Catholics in a constitutional resistance to so baneful a measure; to associate with us
the Dissenters of this empire in protesting against a plan fraught with danger to the cause of
religious toleration'.'
In reply, Keating said that he sympathised with Milner's opposition to the veto and yet he
refused to accede to his request, believing that any resistance would be futile: '1 believe it is
now too late to trust to the advocacy of man', he told Milner, adding that the 'protecting
auspices of heaven are better secured by humble confidence in God, and self-abasement before
him, than by all that the illuminating reason of man can furnish'. 2 Keating was anxious to
preserve the Catholicon 's reputation for moderation. He was also not prepared to exploit the
periodical to agitate English Catholics against the civil government, which would have
offended his Vicar Apostolic and his firm's main patron, the anodyne Poynter, 'wh9se virtues I
honour, and to whose station I pay reverential homage'.3
It was a sign of how divided the English Catholic community was that, in appeasing one
bishop, Keating necessarily upset another. In the October issue of the Orthodox Journal,
Milner called Keating timid and exclaimed that his refusal to speak further on the veto was not
the way for a 'writer and publisher to advance a good and victorious cause!' 4 But Milner could
at least depend on the Orthodox Journal's 'independent pages' 5 for support, and Andrews
immediately made known his thoughts about his 'fallen friend' Keating in an article penned
under the title of 'The Vetoists at their Dirty Work Again'. 6 Andrews was not upset that
Keating had withdrawn from the debate, but rather because he had told the readers of the
Catholicon that it was useless to fight against the veto and had 'thus weakened the ranks of
'Catholicon, III, September 1816. pp. 105-109. Quotation from p. 109.
2 lbid., pp.109-115. Quotation from p. 115.
Ibid.
oi, iv, October 1816, pp. 400-403. Quotation from p. 4Q1.
Ibid., p. 402.
6 Ibid., pp. 386-389.
108 those who are still determined to continue the combat'.' Andrews also wrote that Keating's
reasons for refusing to start a controversy about the veto were a mass of hypocritical
utterances, cloaked 'under the guise of a religious motive' 2 and intended by the 'cowed-down
Journalist' to disguise his surrender to the Catholic Board which, it was alleged, had
intimidated and threatened him into silencing the Catholicon.3
Less expected was Andrews' assault on Bishop Poynter. Although not named directly, he was
said to have colluded with the Catholic Board to disarm 'one of the centinels who undertook to
alarm the garrison of the perils which await them':4
I am able to discern when it is my duty to submit to the authority of the church, and when her ministers assume a power which she has not clothed them with. That there are some who have arrogated to themselves an unjust influence over the freedom of the press; who have made use of the sacredness of the sacerdotal character to bias the mind of a writer which they could not overcome by reason, the only legitimate weapon allowed them, stands confessed in the pages of the Catholicon; but let them beware, lest they get farther exposed to the indignation of an insulted people. I would recommend them to suppress their disgraceful practices, rather than intimidate others to conceal their honest sentiments.5
Andrews felt that Poynter, if indeed he had acted with the Catholic Board, had no right to
interfere in what he saw as a political matter, but this gave him no reason to issue veiled threats
against his own bishop or to put him down as 'weak and ill-advised'. 6 This was certainly not
the behaviour expected of a true son of the Church, especially one who publicly preached
submission to ecclesiastical superiors, and it caused great harm, as Poynter later told Kirk: 'I
lament the effect of that democratic spirit which is operating so powerfully against episcopal &
all Ecclesiastical authority. Every month am I held out to the congregations in my District as a
Traitor to my Religion &c. The language that is sometimes held by the Irish in the ale-houses against me is violent & abusive to the last degree, & this is excited by reading the Orthodox'.7
'Of, IV, October 1816. p. 387.
2 Ibid.
Ibid., pp. 386-387. Quotation from p. 387.
Ibid., p. 386.
Ibid., p. 388.
6 Ibid., p. 386.
7 AAW, PP, A68, Poynter to Kirk, 26 June 1819.
109 Unlike Andrews' other victims, including Poynter, Keating had the means to vindicate himself
quickly and directly through the press, and he accordingly used eleven pages of the Catholicon
to this end in November 1816.' In his defence, Keating argued that, far from being the
Catholic Board's puppet, he had freely removed himself from discussion on the veto, without
renouncing his opposition to it as Andrews had implied, to preserve peace among Catholics.
His defence hinged on two factors, conveniently ignored by Andrews. First, in replying to
Milner, he had corroborated his 'valuable communication' with an unequivocal anti-vetoist
statement. Second, he had affirmed that the Catholicon would never refuse letters or articles,
regardless of subject matter, from 'any temperate advocate of truth'.2 In Keating's estimate,
this evidence pointed to Andrews as a 'scandalous libeller' 3 who had purposely perverted the
facts to damage his reputation, and he ended his article by apologising for having spent time
'brushing off your filth', although he also thanked Andrews for the 'abundance of gall you
have mixed in the compost; for really I begin to think that it has made the nap of my Editorial
mantle look brighter than ever'.4
Keating received no apology from Andrews who had clearly not been hurt by the essay in the
Caiholicon. Writing in the December 1816 number of the Orthodox Journal, he continued to
claim that Keating was the 'Partisan of a Faction', 5 dismissed his 'long and laboured article' as
'peevish' and 'fretful',6 and again argued that he had aéted in a way that was 'degrading and
derogatory to Catholic principles'. 7 Andrews also taunted Keating for printing copies of his
piece in pamphlet form, 'for the purpose of being distributed gratis, from the small sale of The
Catholicon, I presume'. 8 It was indeed true that the Catholicon had not established itself as an
'Cathoilcon. III, November 1816, Pp. 190-200.
2 Ibid., September 1816, p. 115.
Ibid., November 1816, p. 190.
Ibid., p. 200.
Of. IV, December 1816, p. 473.
6 Ibid., p. 474.
Ibid., p. 478.
8 Ibid, p. 474.
110 effective or popular challenger to the Orthodox Journal, even receiving the disapproval of the
leading Cisalpines. Joseph Berington, on first encountering the Cat ho/icon, had 'yawned' at its
contents, and although he considered it less censurable than the Orthodox Journal, was
discouraged from subscribing to it by the editor's transparent anti-vetoism) Charles Butler was
also dissatisfied with the Catholicon: in May 1817, he restated his desire to see founded, under
Lingard's auspices, a 'good catholic monthly publication' 2 which he patently felt Keating had
not done.
It would be incorrect to say that the Catholicon did not receive backing from men of influence,
as it was supported by the Rector of the English College at Rome, Robert Gradwell. 3 He
carefully signed his contributions 'GC', 'lest any one should suspect that I take part in the silly
disputes which by a strange mixture of religious, political and personal controversy are a
disgrace to the Catholics and a plague to our bishops'. 4 However, the Catholicon was mainly
regarded by the Catholic community with apathy and Keating intimated that he would end the
work in November 1817. He only decided to continue after John Kirk promised to supply
several pages of publishable material on a regular basis for two or three years. This guarantee was not based on a conviction that the Catholicon was essential per Se, but owed more to
Kirk's fear that without it, the Orthodox Journal would 'be the only vehicle of intelligence to
Catholics'.5 Until another periodical challenged the Orihodox Journal, both ideologically and commercially, Kirk was willing to help maintain the Catholicon. But had he been aware that a
London-based Catholic bookseller, James Willson, supported by a consortium of 'three gentlemen',6 was then planning a magazine to rival the Orthodox Journal, Kirk would perhaps not so readily have offered to help Keating.
BAA, C2186. Berington to Kirk, II February 1817.
2 BL, Add. Mss., 25129. CBL, Butler to Lingard, May 1817. See above, pp. 80-81.
Born in 1777, Gradwell was first educated at Douay. On returning to England in 1795, he continued his studies at Crook Hall and was ordained in December 1802. Gradwell then taught at Crook Hall and Ushaw until 1809 when he left to work on the Northern mission. His appointment as Rector of the English College at Rome was made in 1817. See Gil/ow, II, pp. 547-557.
LDA, Smith Papers, 12, Robert Gradwell to Thomas Smith, 12 November 1816.
BAA. C2243, Kirk to Butler, 18 April 1818.
6 BL, Add. Mss., 25129, CBL, Butler to John Dunn, 24 February 1818.
111 The Catholic Gentleman 's Magazine first appeared in February 1818, published, printed and edited by Wilison. As Josef L. Altholz correctly writes, the early religious periodical press generally followed the format and protocol of the secular press,' and the Catholic Gentleman's
Magazine was no different. Inspired by the Gentleman's Magazine, it adopted the conceit of having a fictitious character as nominal editor: just as the Gentleman's Magazine had been
'managed' by 'Sylvanus Urban', the Catholic Gentleman's Magazine was 'controlled' by
'Sylvester Palmer'. In the Catholic Gentleman's Magazine's opening address,2 readers were told that, again like the Gentleman 's Magazine, it would be concerned with a wide range of subjects, including politics and literature: although its main purpose was to 'serve religion, and advance both the religious and temporal interests of the British Catholics'. Free and open discussion on these topics would be permitted, but an assurance was given that 'neither a sentiment nor a word shall ever be found in our pages, which a Christian or a gentleman would not avow'.4 In the interests of decorum, Wilison also promised that disputes involving
Catholics would not be noticed, except when absolutely necessary, and only then 'in a manner that will rather compose the difference, than increase the agitation'. The Catholic Gentleman's
Magazine would therefore remain faithful to its motto: 'Paci deditam est opus nostrum: Our's shall ever be pages of peace' .
The Catholic Gentleman's Magazine, which opened it columns to 'decent advocates, on both sides of most questions', professed to stand in refreshing contrast to the 'robust cudgel play' and partisanship of the Orthodox Journal. 6 Unsurprisingly, therefore, it was greeted warmly by
Andrews' opponents. Kirk was so taken with the Catholic Gentleman's Magazine that he regretted Keating's decision to continue the Catholicon, fearing that the Catholic community
'Altholz, 'Anonymity and Editorial Responsibility', p. 180.
2 CGM, 1, February 1818, pp. 1-4.
Ibid., p. 4.
Ibid., p. 3.
5lbid.
6 lbid., September 1818. p. 587.
112 could only support one challenger to the Orthodox Journal. 1 Kirk also recorded that those of
his friends who had read the Catholic Gentleman's Magazine had been impressed and, anxious
that it receive general approval, he pledged to promote the work throughout the Midland
District.2 Other eminent individuals, including Lingard and Fletcher, were enlisted by Charles
Butler to help the fledgling periodical.3 Recognising its possibilities as an antidote to the
Orthodox Journal, Butler had thrown his full weight behind the project from the start. Indeed,
so indefatigable was he in advancing the Catholic Gentleman 's Magazine that many
contemporaries assumed he was the editor,4 a misconception which was perpetuated by later
chroniclers.5 In reality, the association between Butler and the Catholic Gentleman's
Magazine was akin to that between Milner and the Orthodox Journal.
Butler's close relationship with the Catholic Gentleman 's Magazine was readily exploited by
Andrews. He printed a letter in the Orthcidox Journal written by 'A Midland Catholic Layman'
who accused Butler of offering the Catholic Gentleman's Magazine the 'powerful aid of his
restless pen and variegated talent' with promises of an 'extensive circulation' and 'vast
profits', while all along intending to bring the periodical under his control to 'command the
constant and ready admission of all the effusions of his very active mind, and circulate them
through that medium amongst all the Catholic gentlemen, in order to infuse into their minds a
congeniality of feeling and sentiment with his own'.6 This was replied to in the Catholic
Gentleman's Magazine by 'Amenitas'. 7 He remonstrated with Andrews for printing the letter
from 'A Midland Catholic Layman' which he regarded as a malevolent attempt to harm the
Catholic Gentleman 's Magazine under the pretext of persecuting Butler. 'Amenitas' saw that
'BAA, C2243, Kirk to Butler, 18 April 1818.
2 Ibid., C2247, Kirk to Butler, 25 May 1818.
BL, Add. Mss., 25129, CBL, Butler to Kirk, 31 January 1818; Butler to Lingard, 23 February 1818; Butler to John Fletcher, 28 February 1818.
Ibid., Butler to Hugh Charles Clifford, 13 March 1818; Butler to Benjamin Rayment, 9 April 1818.
Husenbeth, 'Catholic Periodicals', p. 3; Gil/ow, I, p. 361; Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, II, p. 186.
6 OJ, VI, July 1818, pp. 25 1-258. Quotations from p. 253:
CGM, 1, September 1818, pp. 585-588.
113 Andrews had acted in this way because of a concern that the competition would affect his
business, and Andrews had good reason to be worried because, as Kirk told Butler in April
1818: 'The orthod. is on the decline; at least I know that many who did take it, take it no
more'.' Like Kirk, however, 'Amenitas' did not want Andrews to enjoy a monopoly over the
English Catholic periodical press, and he asked him: 'Why should not there be other
publications as well as yours? And why should not some of them be devoted to the Catholic
Gentry, without giving offence to the ale bibbers of Orthodoxy?'2
'Amenitas' claimed that Butler had no control or influence whatsoever over the Catholic
Gentleman's Magazine which was presented as an entirely independent publication. Although
it was true that Butler did not have any official executive power, he still managed to direct its editorial policy. Having written the formal address of the Catholic Gentleman's Magazine's first number, Butler demanded that Willson observe the ideological line chalked out for him on the understanding that his vital support would be revoked if the periodical ceased to be
'conducted in the real spirit of christianity, & the true spirit of a gentleman'.3 Butler had early reason to correct Willson: the first number, he complained in 'very strong terms', had strayed from a Christian and gentlemanly path by containing two disputatious articles, to which
Willson replied that he would be 'more cautious in future'.4
On this basis, Wilison and Butler's relationship held firm until ownership of the Catholic
Gentleman 's Magazine was transferred to an unidentified party5 in the autumn of 1818.
Willson retained his editorship, but the change of management made Butler concerned about the work's future, as he revealed to Kirk: 'It is the general opinion, (with which I agree), that it will not be conducted with the spirit of moderation, by which, it has hitherto been distinguished: - and from the boldness of the style, and the ignorance, which appears in some
'BAA. C2243, Kirk to Butler, 18 April 1818:
2 CGM. 1, September 1818, p. 588.
BL, Add. Mss., 25129. CBL, Butler to Rayment, 9 April 1818.
' Ibid., Butler to Clifford, 13 March 1818.
All that is known about the new owner is that he was Willson's 'hot & wrong-headed friend' (BAA, C2306, Kirk to Butler, 16 March 1819).
114 of the Errors of the press, I suspect the conductor is not a man of tolerable learning'.'
Therefore, Butler explained, he could no longer be associated with the Catholic Gentleman's
Magazine.2 This withdrawal of support for Willson, symptomatic of a wider indifference
towards the Catholic periodical press, dealt a severe blow to the Catholic Gentleman's
Magazine which, deprived of a leading supporter, survived only until May 1819. Its failure,
just five months after the Catholicon had succumbed due to meagre public interest, spelt the
end of Catholic journalistic resistance to the first series of the Orthodox Journal.
The failure of the Catholicon and the Catholic Gentleman's Magazine would have relieved
Andrews who was experiencing financial problems and did not need the competition. Since
1816, sales of the Orthodox Journal had fallen, taking away the capital that Andrews required
to 'balance the increase of stock, and soften the occasional losses in trade'. 3 This downward
trend had steadily worsened over the next two years and affected former hotbeds of support,
principally the Midlands and Lancashire, where the readership had dwindled considerably.4
The main cause of the decline in sales was the national economic slump which came after the
end of the Napoleonic Wars. As Andrews wrote, peace had been 'attended with the most
hideous and unexampled misery and distress among the people, occasioned by a total
stagnation of trade, and the annihilation of commerce',5 and this had deprived his core
working-class readership of surplus money to spend on literature.6
There were, of course, other reasons fpr Andrews' problems. He had incurred substantial
losses in November 1815 through a failed attempt to expand his business into Ireland after an
agent in Dublin stole cash and merchandise worth over £250, for which Andrews 'never
received a shilling in return'. 7 It was also evident that many subscribers, tired by the Orthodox
'BAA, C2275, Butler to Kirk, 2 November 1818.
2 BL, Add. Mss., 25129, CBL, Butler to Kirk, 10 November 1818.
BAA, C2144, Andrews to Quick, 6 April 1816.
"Ibid., C2304, Kirk to Butler, 8 March 1819.
OJ, VIII, October 1820, p. 377.
6 lbid., May 1820, p. 208.
'Meeting of the Friends of the Truthteller', CS, III, December 1825.
115 Journal's constant resort to controversy, had given it up in protest. This was especially true of
the Irish subscription, as Archbishop Troy explained to Mimer: 'I am sorry the Orthodox
Journal is not encouraged by others here, as it is by me. Many think it abusive'.' Andrews'
opponents in England were also keen to alert the public that the Orthodox Journal was a
danger to society and government: a contributor to the Cat holicon, writing as 'Philander',2 said
that Andrews was motored by a 'misguided zeal' 3 and disseminated 'revolutionary principles'4
which promoted 'anarchy and irreligion'; 5 and the Catholic Board imputed the Orthodox
Journal early in 1817 as an 'incendiary' and a 'tocsin' which incited 'religious insubordination
and party dissention'.6
Andrews' situation was not helped by the fact that the 'Pseudodox', the name given to the
Orthodox Journal by its critics, had become by 1818 nothing more than a 'repetition of the old
tales & abuses'.7 The economic depression, Andrews explained, deprived him of reliable
sources of new intelligence,8 and the Catholic Board, the periodical's main source of
entertainment, had been inactive since May 1817 when Parliament rejected a petition for
emancipation. Starved of exciting and contemporaneous material, the Orthodox Journal
increasingly appeared unappetising to the Catholic public. Even Andrews, it seemed, had
grown tired of it and wanted a new challenge. In December 1818, he diverted his energies into
establishing in Scotland the Catholic Vindicator, a weekly two-penny pamphlet, to combat the
'gross charges and unfounded assertions, relative to the system of popery', 9 then being made
by a Glaswegian cotton merchant and controversialist, William M'Gavin, in a series of letters
to the Glasgow Chronicle under the pen-name of 'The Protestant'. Andrews justified his
'BAA, A13l3,JohnlroytoMilner, 11 February 1818.
2 Catholicon, III, December 1816, pp. 228-234.
Ibid., p. 232.
Ibid., p.231.
Ibid., p. 229.
6 oj, v, October 1817, p. 406.
AAW, PP. A68, Kirk to Poynter, 14 June 1818.
8 of, VIII, May 1820, p. 207.
Catholic Vindicator, 5 December 1818, p. 1.
116 decision to tackle M'Gavin, arguing that he had 'so besmeared the features of the church of
Rome, and attributed so much wickedness to the principles of her believers', that it would be a
dereliction of duty to stand back as a 'spectator of his hebdomadal detractions'.' However, this
did not persuade Bishop Alexander Cameron, George Hay's successor as Vicar Apostolic of the Lowland District. Cameron was no Milnerite: he always sided with Poynter and the other bishops in their disputes with the Bishop of Castabala,2 and he did not want Andrews to gain a foothold in Scotland. Cameron therefore forbade the Catholics in his area from reading the
Catholic Vindicator, an act that Mi lner saw as part of a larger campaign by the Catholic Board to ruin Andrews.3
The Catholic Vindicator remained in circulation until 4 December 1819. It was killed off after
Parliament implemented legislation in the aftermath of the massacre at Peterloo in Manchester on 16 August. The Newspaper Stamp Duties Act, one of the so-called 'Six Acts' passed in
December, was specifically designed to stop working-class radicals like William Cobbett, founder in 1816 of the Weekly Political Register, to produce 'pamphlets and printed papers containing Observations upon public Events and Occurrences, tending to excite Hatred and
Contempt of the Government and Constitution of these realms by law established, and also vilifying our holy religion'.4 It worked by applying a four-penny duty on all periodical publications that appeared more frequently than every twenty-six days and which conveyed
'any Public News, Intelligence or Occurrences, or any Remarks or Observations thereon, or upon any Matter in Church or State'.5 In the words of Arthur Aspinall, this Act was the 'high- water mark of legislation restricting the freedom of the press': 6 it certainly caused many journalists, including Andrews, to curtail their activity.
'Catholic Vindicator, 5 December 1818, p. 2.
2 Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, II, pp. 58-60, p. 96 and p. 170.
ABSI, ML, II, 139, Milnerto Charles Plowden, 29 November 1819.
' Cited Joel H. Wiener, The War of the Un.ytamped: The Movement to Repeal the British Newspaper Tax, 1830-1836(lthaca, 1969), p. 5.
Cited ibid.. pp. 4-5.
6 Aspinall, Politics and the Press, c. 1780-1850 (London, 1949), p. 59.
117 At the time that the Catholic Vindicator was established, it seemed that the failing Orthodox
Journal was nearing its end. It was galvanised, however, after the Catholic Board started a pro-vetoist petition for relief on 13 January 1819 which was presented to Parliament early in
March with over ten thousand signatures.' Andrews attacked the revived agitation for conditional emancipation, but of greater curiosity to his contributors and readers was the burst of intellectual activity which attended the Catholic Board's political programme. The
Orthodox Journal was particularly enlivened by the discussion of Charles Butler's Historical
Memoirs.2 This impartial and learned study of post-Reformation Catholicism, originally published in two volumes about the same time as the petition, was favourably received and immediately established itself as a standard authority. 3 It nevertheless had its critics, none more vehement than Milner. Under the pseudonym of 'Vindicator', Mimer attacked the
Historical Memoirs in February:4 he wrote that the work was riddled with 'historical and chronological blunders',5 defended 'condemned books, oaths, opinions, and authors',6 and was suitable only for 'boarding-school misses and elegant young gentlemen readers'. 7. Milner did not restrict his comments to the literary merits of the work, but also launched a personal attack on the author. Butler had lost the sight in one eye after a cataract operation and was blighted with a squint.8 Milner drew attention to this in his article, referring to Butler's 'distorted eyes' and saying that they needed to be covered 'with a patch or plaister'.9
Milner's callous observation was a turning-point for the Orthodox Journal which was
'universally reprobated' for the first time for going beyond its already stretched bounds of
Ward. Eve of Catholic Emancipation, 11, pp. 249-250.
2 Charles Butler, Historical Memoirs Respecting the English, Irish, and Scottish Catholics, From the Reformation, to the Present Time 2 vols (London, 1819).
Ward, op. cit., p. 288.
Of, VII, February 1819, pp. 64-65.
Ibid., p. 64.
6 /bid., p. 65.
Ibid., p. 64.
8 Ward, op. cit., p.291.
' of, VII, February 1819, P. 64.
1 18 decency.' The Jesuits of Stonyhurst condemned the review, as did John Kirk who urged
Butler, albeit unsuccessfully, to renew his support for James Wilison and the Catholic
Gentleman 's Magazine to prevent the 'pestilent' Orthodox Journal from becoming the only
organ of Catholic intelligence. 2 Mimer was forced to apologise in April 3 when he conceded
that his reference to Butler's 'natural defect'4 had been insensitive. But the charity extended no
further because Mimer then proceeded to indict 'this meddling man' 5 for his past and present
betrayal of Catholicism which, it was claimed, the Historical Memoirs had glossed over, and he gave Butler some advice: 'Mr C.B. .for his own sake, as well as for that of the English catholics, had much better pass his time in eating turtle at the London tavern, or in playing at ball in the Tennis court at Charing Cross, or even in throwing dice at the gambling house in St
James's street, than in disfiguring and undermining his religion, as he has been in the habit of doing, by his writings and his intrigues at Lincoln's Inn, for more than these thirty years past'.6
Milner's second article came only after he received some 'heavy blows' 7 in the Catholic
Gentleman 's Magazine which denounced him as a 'demagoguish scribe' of 'unprincipled vulgarity'.8 These comments were made in a review of Butler's Historical Memoirs, which
Milner9 and later Bernard War&° both thought Butler had written himself. This seems unlikely: Butler was, after all, estranged from the Catholic Gentleman's Magazine and had in any case recently vowed to avoid all controversial engagement with Milner to prevent the
Catholic Board's current campaign for emancipation being hindered." James Willson, on the
'AAW. PP. A68, Butler to Kirk, 31 March 1819.
2 BAA, C2306, Kirk to Butler, 16 March 1819 and C23 11, Kirk to Butler, 14 April 1819.
OJ, VII, April 1819, pp. 129-135.
4 lbid.,p. 129.
5 lbid.. p.131.
6 ibid.,p. 130.
AAW. PP. A68, Poynter to Kirk, 5 April 1819.
8 CGIvI, II, March 1819, p. 102.
Of, VII, February 1819, p.64; April 1819, p. 129.
'° Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, II, p.291.
"BAA. C2275, Butler to Kirk, 2 November 1818.
119 other hand, is a more likely candidate. Celebrating the end of the Catholic Gentleman 's
Magazine, Joseph Berington referred to Willson's recent abuse of Butler' and the only obvious
example of Butler being criticised as a 'bad politician and a weak philosopher' 2 came at the
end of the article in which Milner was savaged.
Milner's two attacks on Butler had been expertly planned to cause as much damage, not only to sales of the Historical Memoirs, but also to the political hopes of the Catholic Board, appearing as they did just before the parliamentary debate on the petition for conditional emancipation. Indeed, Milner's second article was separately drawn off by Andrews and copies were sent to politicians with a view to discredit the leading members of the Catholic laity and so subvert their scheme for the veto.3 This initiative was rewarded in May when
Parliament rejected the motion for Catholic Relief, which Milner celebrated by supplying
Andrews with another article.4 It scythed through Butler and Berington who, with two other controversial Catholic writers, the Scottish priest, biblical scholar and extreme apologist for the Catholic Committee, Alexander Geddes, 5 and the Irish priest and classical tourist, John
Chetwode Eustace,6 were labelled 'betrayers of their religion'7 and denounced for having brought Catholicism into disrepute through their allegedly latitudinarian and heterodox writings.
In the summer of 1819, the leaders of the Catholic Board decided that drastic action was needed to crush the Orthodox Journal. They accordingly commissioned one of their own,
Hugh Charles Clifford,8 to write two letters against the periodical to the New Times, a leading
'AAW, PP. A68. Berington to Kirk, 25 May 1819.
2 CGM II. April 1819, p. 148.
'BAA, Al218, 'Letter from Dr Milner, on the Present State of Catholic Affairs' (April 1819). ' Of, VII, June 1819, pp. 228-23 1.
See Duffy, 'Eccicsiastical Democracy Detected: II', p. 317. 6 See below. p. 173.
Of, VII, June 1819. p. 229. 8 Born in 1790, Clifford was educated at Stonyhurst.. He became Lord Clifford after his father's death in 1831 and lived until 1858. Sec Gil/ow, 1, pp. 509-511.
120 Tory newspaper. Printed on 10 and 12 August, the letters portrayed Andrews as a political
firebrand who was closely connected with Thomas Wooler, a leading radical reformer and the
editor of an outlawed weekly pamphlet, the Black Dwarf 1 Indeed, Clifford claimed, Andrews
had colluded with Wooler to promote a union of Catholics and revolutionaries in the Orthodox
Journal, and to publicise the resolutions reached at a 'meeting of the non-represented
inhabitants' of London held at Smithfield on 21 July. 2 Before an estimated crowd of sixty thousand people, mainly mechanics and labourers, the organisers of this gathering had demanded that the government allow every citizen, irrespective of social class or religious affiliation, to take part in the political life of the British constitution. They had also called on
English and Irish Catholics to unite with them in the fight for radical reform which, it was promised, would bring full religious emancipation. For being party to this affront to authority,
Clifford said, the seditious Orthodox Journal, espousing principles inimical to the conservative doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, had to be suppressed.3
Andrews categorically denied that he had forfeited the independent standing of the Orthodox
Journal to a representative of any party, let alone a man like Wooler, a 'scoffer of aU religions',4 and in an effort to repel Clifford's attack printed four letters between September and December 1819 which explained in full and at length his political beliefs.5 Andrews described himself as a 'radical reformer of abuses' 6 'and a 'radical advocate for freedom of conscience' 7 who wanted to help improve the corrupt and unjust political institutions which had caused the country's current economic crisis. He also stated his belief in the liberal principles of Magna Carta8 and expressed support for the Smithfield reformers: like them, he
'Aspinall, Politics and the Press, pp. 52-56.
2 0.1, VII, July 1819, pp. 284-288. Quotation from p. 284.
For Clifford's letters, see ibid.. October 1819, pp. 362-364.
4 /bid., September 1819, p. 321.
Ibid.. pp. 321-344; October 1819, pp. 361-371: November 1819, pp. 409-423; December 1819, pp. 44 1-458.
6 /bid p. 446.
Ibid., p. 447.
S Ibid.. September 1819, p. 343.
121 advocated the democratic right of the populace to a full and fair representation in Parliament
and the opening of public office to people of all classes and denominations. Andrews wanted
Catholics to unite with other disfranchised bodies to restore universal civil and religious
liberties: without a root-and-branch reform of Parliament, he argued in his letters to Clifford,
they would never be fully emancipated.
But Andrews also considered himself a 'radical friend to the constitution' and a 'radical professor of the catholic faith'.' By this he meant that he was not a revolutionary or 'some bloody-minded miscreant, some wretch, who, devoid of feeling and of principle, meditates nothing less than the overthrow of all religions, the subversion of all governments, and the destruction of every human being that dares to think or act differently from himself. 2 Just as
Andrews had been opposed to the French Revolution while working at the Norfolk Chronicle, so was he now anxious to avoid 'tumult, civil war, bloodshed, and blasphemy' in England. 3 He justified the existence of the Orthodox Journal, writing that open discussion of political issues was necessary 'in order to come at a sound and correct judgment on the state of parties at this critical juncture, and the line of conduct which catholics ought to pursue, in the event of the dreaded convulsion taking place, to prevent similar evils that occurred in a neighbouring nation, when in a state of revolution, and preserve our clergy from becoming the victims of popular vengeance'.4 The Orthodox Journal had a vital role to play: it would rally the lower classes to campaign for reform, but not exhort the poor to revolt, and it would call on the government to take the initiative, with w?amings of the violence that would follow if it refused to act justly.
Andrews assured his readers that Catholicism was compatible with the fight for civil freedom on the basis that those responsible for Magna Carta 'were men who held the same faith as myself.5 He promised not to compromise his religion in the struggle for radical reform, stating
Of. VII, December 1819, p. 447.
2 Ibid.
Ibid.. p. 456.
Ibid., p. 442.
Ibid., p. 443.
122 that it would be the compass to steer his political course, and he added that he would continue
to promote Catholicism as the true religion which, with the papacy at its head providing
authority and unity, was the only system able to 'preserve the constitution in its purity' and
save nations from revolution. 1 This idea had lately been propagated in the celebrated Du Pape
by Joseph de Maistre who looked to Rome to support the French monarchy.2 However,
Andrews took Ultramontanism in a different direction from the archreactionary de Maistre by
wedding it with democracy. More significantly, he was doing this a decade before Abbé
Félicité de Lamennais, one of the most prominent men in nineteenth-century ecclesiastical
history,3 did the same thing in his own periodical, L'Avenir.4 Before founding L'Avenir in
France in 1830, Lamennais had not united Ultramontanism with Liberalism: like de Maistre,
he looked to the papacy and the monarchy to give society its stability and order, and despised
democracy because it threatened anarchy. Lamennais only changed his mind when he saw that
Catholic countries were rising in revolt against their tyrannical rulers, and concluded that the
people and not the kings stood for freedom.5 There are also grounds for arguing that Andrews
influenced Lamennais: as W.G. Roe has discovered, Lamennais first read the Orthodox
Journal while staying in England in 1815 and subscribed to it after returning to France.6
Andrews' explanation of his political creed was ignored by the Catholic Board which
immediately spread the news that Andrews had declared himself an enemy of the government.7
This alarmed many readers of the Orthodox Journal, including Milner who now found that he
shared some common political ground with the Catholic Board. Concerned that Andrews had
forgotten that his was an 'orthodox not a political journal', 8 Milner privately conveyed his
OJ, VII, December 1819, P. 443.
2 Wilfrid Ward, William George Ward and the Catholic Revival (London, 1893), pp. 88-92.
3 !bid.,p. 101.
See below, pp. 180-181.
W.G. Roe. Lamennais and England: The Reception of Lamennais 's Religious Ideas in England in the Nineteenth Century (Oxford. 1966), pp. 7-8.
6 lbid., pp. 116-I 17.
0.1. VII, December 1819. p. 446.
Cited ibid., p. 441. See Mimer to Denys Scully, 13 January 1820. in Brian MacDermot, The Catholic Question in Ireland and England, /798-1822: The Papers of Denys Scully (Dublin, 1988), p. 639: 'In
123 dismay that Andrews had taken an extremist line, predicting that it would incite others to
violence: 'I see before my eyes another French revolution in England, which God in his justice
may very likely permit to prevail, and of which, by one accident or another, I shall probably
become the victim'.' Milner also publicised his opposition to radical reform and Jacobin
principles in a pastoral charge dated 28 October. 2 It condemned those 'designing individuals' who seemed intent on driving the 'multitude to the most fatal excesses', 3 and instructed
Catholics to guard themselves against the 'spreading infection of turbulency'. 4 Andrews regretted that Mimer had published this 'political circular',5 and criticised him in the Orthodox
Journal for interfering in concerns outside his spiritual remit and for encouraging the
'officious part of the priesthood to assume still greater authority in our civil concerns'.6
During the final weeks of 1819, the Catholic Board took advantage of the breakdown in
Mimer and Andrews' relationship by reporting that the Pope had condemned the Orthodox
Journal and that copies of the condemnation had been pinned to the walls of the Vatican.7
Although this was not true, the Catholic Board had appointed two of its members, Henry
Howard8 and George Silvertop, to present the Holy See with a list of grievances about Milner and the Orthodox Journal. This was a direct result of Bishop Poynter's suggestion that a formal complaint against Milner be made to the Pope and Propaganda because, through his contributions to the Orthodox Journal, he had 'encouraged every refractory or democratic
consequence of yr. suggestions concerning the Orthodox Journal, its editor has exerted himself to get it introduced in Dublin. I fear, however, it will not stand long in consequence of the turn & the violence of his politics. This event I shd. bewail, as I consider it, in other respects, as a useful vehicle of information'.
'Cited Of, VII, December 1819, p. 441.
2 Ibid., November 1819, pp. 406-409.
Ibid., p. 406.
"Ibid.. p. 407.
Ibid. p.416.
6 See CUL, Add. 9418. LP, Smith to Lingard, 16 September 1819: 'I am told that Andrews has attacked Dr Milner's circular against the Reformers'.
Of, VII, November 1819, p. 411; ABSI, ML, II, 139, Milner to Charles Plowden, 29 November 1819.
8 Howard was born in 1757, and educated at bouay and Paris. He died in 1842. See Gillow, III, pp. 427- 435.
124 scribbler among the Catholics to attack the conduct & authority of Bps'.' Between 22
December 1819 and 6 February 1820, Howard and Silvertop met many dignitaries in Rome.
Their visit culminated in an audience with Pius VII who denounced the Orthodox Journal as a
'receptacle of factious insolence, and of abuse of the English Nobility, of the Cardinals, Vicars
Apc, and Priests, of the great, the learned and the good'. The Pope also commanded the
Prefect of Propaganda, Cardinal Fontana, to order Milner to 'reform and to tell him that otherwise his spiritual Faculties will be withdrawn'.2 In a letter of 29 April, Fontana told
Milner that Rome was angry that he had spread the 'seed of discord' through the Orthodox
Journal and he was ordered to take 'no further part henceforward, directly or indirectly, in the said journal, not to patronise or promote it in any way whatsoever, nor to furnish it with materials or arguments, and far less with any contribution'.3 Mimer replied on 12 June, maintaining that he had always defended the Holy See, but he did promise not to write for
Andrews again.4
The loss of a mainstay like Milner dealt the Orthodox Journal a severe blow from which it could not have recovered. Aware that it had been rendered unviable, and with the financial backing of a few Protestant sympathisers, Andrews drew up plans to replace the Orthodox
Journal with the first Catholic weekly stamped newspaper, the Catholic Advocate of Civil and
Religious Liberty. As Andrews told his readers, the Catholic Advocate would continue the work of the Orthodox Journal in advancing the cause of universal civil and religious liberty:
'In a word, the object of The Catholic Advocate will be, to defend the independence of the catholic clergy from ministerial influence and intrigue, to maintain the right of freedom of conscience, to obtain the removal of all religious tests to quali1j for civil office, to obtain, for persons of all religious persuasions, equal eligibility to the privileges of the constitution, and
'LDA, Smith Papers, 75, Poynter to Smith, 4 October 1819.
2 UCA, Presidents' Archive, R29, Gradwell to Richard Thompson, I May 1820.
Cited Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, 11, p. 188. See ibid., pp. 34 1-345 for transcriptions (in Latin) of the correspondence between Fontana and Milner.
Mimer kept his word and during the final years of his life (he died on 19 April 1826) did not contribute an article to any periodical published by Andrews. See ABSI, ML, II, 154, Milner to Charles Plowden, 30 January 1821 175b, Milnerto Rev F. Scott, 2 September 1823.
125 the full restoration of all their constitutional rights'.' The Catholic Advocate eventually
appeared for the first time on 3 December and Andrews closed the Orthodox Journal at the
end of the month, convinced that his newspaper would succeed.
Andrews believed that a more regular form of literary representation than a monthly periodical
was essential to maintain a vigilant watch over the Catholic Board which had lately renewed its
campaign to obtain qualified relief with the drafting of a parliamentary petition. This
document, signed by over eight thousand individuals, was presented to the House of Commons
on 28 February 1821. That same day, William Plunket, the leading Protestant champion of
emancipation, urged his fellow politicians, on behalf of the Irish Catholics, to debate the
question of Catholic relief. The motion was passed and two bills were produced early in
March. The first was designed to enfranchise Catholics and permit them access to public office
on condition that they swore the Elizabethan oath of supremacy which denied that the Pope
had any civil or ecclesiastical authority within the realm. The second item outlined two
concomitant securities which were essentially similar to those embodied in the Relief Bill of
1813: Catholic priests would not be able to exercise their functions without Crown approval
and all communications from Rome were to be intercepted and examined.2
Both bills were vigorously opposed by Milner and he urged Parliament to reject the suggested
measures in a hastily produced counter-petition. This provoked an angry response from
Plunket who claimed that Milner did not represent the views of other English Catholics. 3 This was untrue because, as well as the nine hundred signatories of his paper, Milner was supported by Andrews. In matters of religion, if not in politics, Andrews and Milner were united, and the
Catholic Advocate was set firmly against the 'Oath of Supremacy and Catholic Enslavement
B ill'.4 Andrews was particularly sickened by the assistance Plunket and other representatives
'OJ, VIII, October 1820, p. 384. See CA, 3 December 1820, p. 1.
2 Ibid, 4 March 1821, p. 107; Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, III, pp. 57-62; G.I.T. Machin, The Catholic Question in English Politics 1820 to /830 (Oxford, 1964), pp. 25-27; Fergus O'Ferrall, Catholic Emancipation: Daniel O'Connell a,nd the Birth of Irish Democracy 1820-30 (Dublin, 1985), pp. 2-7.
Ward, op. cit., pp. 63-64. ' Quotation from CA, II March 1821, p. 113. See ibid., 25 March 1821, pp. 129-130 and p. 133; 1 April 1821, p. 140.
126 of the 'most corrupt system that ever oppressed the country' received from the Catholic Board
to promote legislation 'framed by the Whigs for the more easy and effectual mode of
corrupting the Catholic Bishops and Clergy of Ireland, and by their active instrumentality in
the corruption of the flocks intrusted to their care, to prevent Reform in Parliament'.' After the
'Catholic Enslavement Bill' passed through its third reading in the Commons, the Catholic
Board sent Plunket a warm letter of thanks signed by the foremost English Catholic nobleman,
Bernard Howard, Duke of Norfolk, and Edward Jemingham. Andrews described this as a
fawning act of 'perfidy and baseness' 2 which, in his estimate, confirmed that the Catholic
aristocratic junto was as prepared as ever to betray the clergy in order to 'share in the plunder
wrung from the distresses of the people'.3
At the outset of these political manoeuvrings, Andrews had calmly assured the readers of the
Catholic Advocate that Plunket and his associates could not succeed because of strong
political resistance in Parliament, particularly the House of Lords.4 It was therefore with
pleasure that Andrews learnt that the latest movement for relief had been rejected on 17 April5
and he jubilantly reported that the Lords, as bigotted against Catholicism as they were, had
unintentionally supported freedom by rejecting measures that would have 'put the Catholics
into greater bondage than they are in at present'.6 In stark contrast, of course, this outcome
disappointed the Catholic Board and, as Andrews later claimed, it held him responsible for the
failure of the legislation. This 'misguided and prejudiced faction', 7 he alleged, avenged itself
by using its influence to withdraw public support from the Catholic Advocate, despite the
newspaper reportedly having 'removed more of the Protestant prejudice than the Catholic
CA, 8 April 1821, p. 151.
2 Ibid.
3 lbid., 11 March 1821, p. 113.
4 lbid,4 March IW21,p. 107.
Ward. Eve of Catholic Emancipation, 111, p. 75; Mach in, Catholic Question in English Politics, pp. 28- 31; O'Ferrall, Catholic Emancipation, p. 8.
6 CA, 29 April 1821. p. 171.
of, IX, December 1823, p. 497.
127 press of three centuries had done'.' Andrews consequently incurred a severe financial loss and
was forced to give up the Catholic Advocate at the end of July.2
The fall of the Catholic Advocate was not lamented by John Kirk. He welcomed the news and
told Charles Butler that now was the time to establish 'another, & a better work'. 3 Indeed, just
one month before Andrews' career was suddenly halted, Kirk had proposed, as the
representative of a group of priests in the Midland District, that a 'respectable Catholic
monthly publication', which would be 'free from party-spirit, & abuse', should be founded.4
Kirk quickly enlisted the help of Poynter's secretary, John Lee, 5 who in turn recommended as
editor 'an elegant scholar & a sound critic', Charles Brennan. According to Lee, Brennan was
willing to take on the responsibility and had ambitious ideas for the work:
He has no notion of confining it to catholic intelligence, which, indeed, is too scanty for a monthly publication; but intends, if he undertakes it, to make it a repository of every useful information; viz, a compression of the debates in Parliament, London Gazettes, prices of Stock, obituary &c &c. after the manner of the Gentleman's Magazine. He has an idea of purchasing the labours of certain literary characters among his Protestant acquaintances & of admitting protestant replies if made with decorum in all which matters his own taste &judgement will be his guide.6
Brennan had apparently also told Lee that he would 'have nothing to do with the squabbles of catholics & never admit an article calculated to hurt the feelings of individuals unless in the way of fair honorable criticism'.7 Brennan's former teacher at Douay, John Lingard, who welcomed the prospect of a new Cisalpine review, was recruited to write and ask him formally to assume the editorship of the planned magazine. Lingard also contacted brethren clergy in the Northern District to seek literary and financial assistance. Unfortunately, despite these
I IX. December 1823, p. 497.
2 Ibid., X, June 1824. p. 235; XII, October 1830, p. 367. AAW. PP. A68, Kirk to Butler, 27 July 1821.
Ibid., Kirk to Poynter, 12 June 1821.
Born in 1768. Lee was educated at Douay and St Edmund's where he was ordained in 1793. He then worked in the London District and was at Winchester between 1803 and 1810. He died in 1839, having spent twenty-six years as chaplain at the Bavarian Chapel in Warwick Street. See Anstruther, Seminary Priests. IV, p. 170.
6 AAW. PP. A68. John Lee to Kirk, 27 June 1821.
Ibid.
128 exertions, the project went no further because Brennan, contrary to what Lee had written, was
unwilling to sacrifice the comfortable living that he then enjoyed in London as a private tutor
and thus declined Lingard's offer.'
After the final number of the Catholic Advocate was printed, Andrews entered a period of
unemployment which lasted until January 1822 when he founded an exclusively political work
under the name of the People's Advocate. This weekly paper was intended for a cross-
denominational readership, but it was not a commercial success and 'went out like the snuff of
a candle' after just seven numbers. 2 Andrews was then given work by another London Catholic
publisher, Ambrose Cuddon,3 as the acting editor of a magazine called the Catholic Miscellany
and Monthly Repository of information which, like the People's Advocate, had first appeared
at the beginning of the year. The union between Andrews and the Catholic Miscellany was
undoubtedly incongruous. Its main concern was to encourage historical study and literary
debate, and this non-controversial periodical had consciously eschewed political discussion in
its first two numbers in order to preserve and promote a 'union of feeling' which Cuddon
believed ought to be the distinguishing feature of Catholicism.4 The Catholic Miscellany had
therefore quite clearly not been designed to fill the void left by the Orthodox Journal.
Andrews certainly knew that this was the case when he accepted the editorship of the Catholic
Miscellany at the end of February 1822. However; personal financial hardship had left him
with no option but to grasp Cuddon's offer. Having agreed to manage the periodical, Andrews
accepted the editorial policy that had been chalked out for him and cautiously protected his
sole source of regular income by obeying the instruction to fill it with what he disdainfully
referred to as 'antiquated fragments and insipid essays'.5
'UCA, LP, 207, Lingard to Kirk, June 1821; CUL, Add. 9418, LP, Lingard to Butler, 1 April 1822.
2 j, XII, October 1830, p. 367. Copies of the People Advocate have not been found and, as far as can be ascertained, no copies are still extant.
Cuddon possibly started his career as an apprentice to Keating, Brown and Keating. In 1823, he helped to establish the London Catholic Library. Very few other details about Cuddon's life are known, but for further information, see Gillow, 1, pp. 605-607 and Brian Carter, 'Catholic Charitable Endeavour in London, 18 10-1840. Part I', RH, XXV, May 2001, p. 500 and pp. 502-503.
CM, 1, January 1822, pp. 1-3. Quotation from p. 1.
Of, IX, January 1823, p. 2.
129 Andrews worked for the Catholic Miscellany without distraction until one morning late in
November 1822 when he was arrested for failing to honour a debt of under £20 owed to a
bookbinder. Andrews' imprisonment might only have lasted a matter of days, but the
humiliating experience caused him to reconsider his future.' As a result of this self-reflection,
and feeling that the Catholic Miscellany was a 'poor wishy-washy, milk-and-water thing',2
Andrews decided to establish himself once again as an independent publisher of periodicals.
Accordingly, he renewed the Orthodox Journal in January 1823: advertised as a 'vehicle of
freedom and truth', it was intended to combine theology with politics, elucidate the true
doctrines of Catholicism and instruct Catholics as to their relative duties to the state.3
The renewal of the Orthodox Journal prompted the firm of Keating and Brown 4 to establish, in
February 1823, its own monthly offering, the Catholic Spectator, which Andrews later
dismissed as 'poor puny opposition'. 5 At first, however, Andrews had not been so complacent
and, in an effort to lower the economic risk which the move towards independence entailed,
had held on to his paid position as editor of the Catholic Miscellany until July 1823.6 Within
one month of resigning from the Catholic Miscellany, this periodical made Andrews the
subject of a hostile article. 7 An author identified only as 'A Catholic Priest' accused him of
being a heretic because, in a recent number of the Orthodox Journal, he had criticised John
Fletcher for including in his latest work, Thoughts on the Rights and Prerogatives, of the
Church, and Slate, a sweeping denunciation of Socinians and Unitarians as being of 'no
religion'.8 Fletcher had been unfair, Andrews stated, to 'permit our fellow-men to be
condemned in the lump' for their 'unintentional error' and, in his unnecessarily harsh critique,
'Of, Xli, October 1830, P. 367.
2 Ibid., p. 368.
Ibid. IX, January 1823. pp. 4-5. Quotation from p. 5. ' The firm of Keating, Brown and Keating had been renamed as Keating and Brown after Patrick Keating's death, at the age of eighty-two, in October 1816.
5 /bid., December 1823, p. 466.
6 Truthteller, Xi, 5 April 1828. p. 10; Of, XII, October 1830, p. 368; LDOJ, IV. 22 April 1837. p. 246.
CM. II, August 1823, pp. 354-358.
8 John Fletcher, Thoughts on the Rights and Prerogatives, of the Church and State: With Some Observations Upon the Question of Catholic Securities (London. 1823), p. 89.
130 had betrayed the 'mild but unbending spirit' of Catholicism.' It would have been more
constructive, he continued, had Fletcher concentrated instead on the task of pointing out
inconsistencies contained in the doctrines of Socinianism and Unitarianism, rather than berate
and belittle the 'moral man' who practised them.2
Peter B. Nockles has argued that the two strands of English Catholicism, Ultramontanism and
Cisalpinism, were not indicative of an attitude to Protestantism:3 a Cisalpine could be as anti-
Protestant as the most militant Catholic who in turn could be as conciliatory as the most liberal
member of the Church, and this is exemplified by Andrews and Fletcher's differing attitudes to
Socinians and Unitarians. However, contrary to what 'A Catholic Priest' thought, Andrews'
defence of Protestants did not mean thai he was defending Protestantism itself, merely that he
was more interested in discussing principles than condemning people. I-fe had shown this in
recent months by writing a total of eighteen pamphlets in direct reply to arguments presented
by Edmond Sibson, an Anglican curate from Lancashire, who had slandered the doctrines of
Catholicism in a series of tracts. 4 At the same time, Andrews had begun writing a systematic
refutation of the Acts and Monuments of the Christian Reformation, that most anti-Catholic of
texts by the Elizabethan martyrologist John Foxe which had first appeared in 1563. Andrews'
work5 was written in reply to some 'furious bigots in Southwark' 6 who had advertised a new
edition of this scurrilous book in an attempt to heighten sectarian tensions. The first part of
Andrews' critique appeared in November 1823 with the help of some Catholic Defence
Societies, founded by him in Newcastle, Leeds, Birmingham and other industrial towns, which
collectively raised £50 to defray the printing costs. Andrews thought that this was money well
'OJ, IX, June 1823, pp. 238-244. Quotations from pp. 242-243.
2 /bid., September 1823, pp. 34 1-354. Quotation from p. 352. Peter B. Nockles, "The Difficulties of Protestantism": Bishop Milner, John Fletcher and Catholic Apologetic Against the Church of England in the Era from the First Relief Act to Emancipation, 1778- 1830', RH, XXIV, October 1998. pp. 193-236. Of, XII, October 1830, p. 368 Gillow, I, pp. 50-51.
William Eusebius Andrews, A Critical and Historical Review of Fox's Book of Martyrs, Shewing the Inaccuracies, Falsehoods, and Misrepresentations in that Work of Deception 3 vols (London, 1824- 1826).
6 LDOJ, IV, 29 April 1837, p. 269.
131 spent because it allowed him to correct falsehoods spread by Foxe and the Southwark
propagandists.'
Andrews' satisfaction in making a stand against bigotry caused him to consider establishing
another weekly paper on Catholic principles that would combat Protestant misrepresentation
more effectively than the occasional treatise or monthly periodical. He first presented this idea
in December 1823 to the readers of the Orthodox Journal.2 They were told that a regular
independent press was necessary to enlighten Protestants, as the Catholic Advocate had done,
about the true tenets of Catholicism and thereby remove them from the 'mist of prejudice'.3
This evidently met with enough approval because, just five months later, Andrews appealed
publicly for subscriptions to enable him to circulate alongside the Orthodox Journal a work
which, designed to serve as 'a mirror of knowledge to the prejudiced and a pillar of strength to
the calumniated',4 was to be issued under the title of the Truihieller with 'truth is powerful and
will prevail' as its motto.
This plan, however, was opposed at the outset by the British Catholic Association, a party
formed in the summer of 1823 to replace the Catholic Board, but which, unlike its predecessor,
was open to all Catholics, not only members of the aristocracy and gentry, on payment of a
small annual subscription.5 At a meeting on 11 June 1824, the Association rejected the idea of
a Catholic newspaper, believing that it would appeal only to a Catholic audience and could
therefore serve no useful purpose in reforming mainstream Protestant opinion. A major
concern was also voiced by Edward Blount who had taken charge of the Catholic Board after
Edward Jerningham died in May 1822 and was now the Secretary of the Association. Blount
argued that granting a free licence over the press to a blackguard like Andrews would incite an
angry Protestant backlash and risk irreparable damage to political reconciliation, and he was
Of. X. July 1824. pp. 255-256 and XII. October 1830. p. 368; Meeting of the Friends of the Truthteller'. CS, III, December 1825.
2 Of, IX, December 1823, pp. 496-498.
Ibid., p. 497.
4 !bid., X, May 1824, p. 168.
Ward. Eve of Catholic Emancipation, 111, p. 116.
132 not willing to open either himself or the Association to the firebrands which Andrews was
expected to throw out in the Truthteller. It was thus decided that, instead of forging an alliance
with Andrews, the Association would do more good by following the example set by the
Catholic Board 1 and use a secular newspaper like the Weekly Globe to promote its activities
and represent the Catholic community.2
In the light of this decision, Andrews left London for several weeks for a provincial tour to
gauge the level of demand for a Catholic newspaper, as well as to collect much-needed funds.
Over £260 was raised, which persuaded Andrews that the Truthteller would enjoy enough
support. He received particularly strong encouragement from the Catholics of Lancashire who
helped him drum up subscriptions for the Truthteller. Among the organisations that they
contacted was the Irish Catholic Association, formed in May 1823 by Daniel O'Connell. Born
in 1775, and educated at St Omer's and Douay, O'Connell had entered Lincoln's Inn in 1794
and was called to the Irish Bar in l798. He established his reputation as a superb cross-
examiner and public speaker, and used these skills to lead the movement in Ireland for
unconditional emancipation, opposing plans for the veto in 1808, condemning the Relief Bill
of 1813 as inadequate, and calling that of 1821 'more strictly, literally, and emphatically a
penal and persecuting bill than any or all the statutes passed in the darkest and most bigotted
periods of the reigns of Queen Anne or of the first two Georges'. 4 O'Connell had also spoken
out in support of constitutional reform and had been commended by Andrews for arguing with
him that religious emancipation was impossible without this. 5 O'Connell was clearly a man
with whom Andrews had much in common, and when he was approached to support the
Truthteller, gave his approval on condition that the person entrusted with its management had
an 'intimate and thorough knowledge of Ireland' and would 'rebut and detect more effectually
See above, p. 77.
2 j, X, June 1824, pp. 235-236 and July 1824, PP. 260-263 and pp. 284-289; CM, 111, June 1824, pp. 298-300; CS, II, June 1824, pp. 233-246.
For full biographical details, see DNB, XIV, pp. 8 15-834; Oliver MacDonagh, The Hereditary Bondsman: Daniel 0 'Connell 1775-1829 (London, 1988).
4 Cited CA, 25 March l821,p. 133.
5 /bid., 14 January 1821, pp. 51-52; 28 January 1821, p. 65.
133 the slanders of the Orange press, and dissect the fabricated statements which interested and
fanatic bigots give existence to'.'
However, the most important fillip to Andrews was Mimer's endorsement. Writing to Andrews
for the first time in over four years, Mimer made a small donation to the Truthieller and said that he hoped that it would prosper.2 In reply to this unexpected goodwill gesture, Andrews,
after returning to London in August, explained to his readers the relationship that he had with
Milner: 'We have had the pain to differ from the venerable prelate on subjects of a political
nature, but we have always agreed on points of faith and discipline. We have, conceiving it our
duty to our country as a public writer, expressed our dissent from his lordship on topics
connected with civil polity, but we have ever regarded Dr Mimer with the highest degree of
veneration'.3 He then assured Milner directly that he would consistently use the Truthieller 'to
defend the sacred rights of the church from any attempt at innovation on the part of men in
power, and to expose the stratagems of interested revilers to blacken the character of our divine Religion'.4 Andrews also disclosed that this work would begin on 25 September 1824 when, even without the backing of the British Catholic Association, the first number of the
Truthieller was advertised to appear.
Just as Milner had wished, the Truthteller flourished at the beginning of its life. Its
'conciliatory tone' and 'liberal principles' 5 attracted new readers every week and persuaded even Edward Blount to overcome his original scepticism. At a public meeting on 21 October,
Blount admitted that the Truthteller had been conducted in a manner worthy of praise and therefore supported a motion to grant £50 to the Preston branch of the Association despite knowing that it would give Andrews the money. 6 Andrews responded to Blount's change in
Proceedings of the Catholic Association in Dublin, From May 13, 1823 to February 11, 1825 (London, 1825), p. 459.
2 X, August 1824, p. 328.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid., October 1824, p. 412.
6 Ibid., pp.409-411; CM, HI, October 1824, p. 493; CS, II, November 1824, pp. 399-400.
134 attitude by closing the Orthodox Journal in December: 'The end for which the Orthodox was
established is consummated; its name has been rendered obnoxious to some; we are therefore
the more ready to make the sacrifice, tO give a proof of the sincerity of our disposition to
preserve that happy concord which now reigns amongst the Catholics, and which it is most
essential to their interests to keep unbroken'.' Andrews moreover showed that he wanted to
preserve the current spirit of unity in January 1825 when he used his influence in London to
raise over £130 on behalf of the British Catholic Association and to collect over five thousand
signatures for a parliamentary petition which it had drawn up. These acts of generosity
ultimately persuaded the Association that Andrews deserved its full support and the Defence
Committee promised to use his press to print their propaganda.2
Andrews' relationship with the Irish Catholic Association was surprisingly not as close as the
one he enjoyed with its sister body in England. The encouragement that he received from
Dublin extended only to a standard subscription to the Truthteller3 which, contrary to
Acheson's claim,4 did not owe its life to the Irish Catholic Association. As O'Connell himself
said on 27 October 1824, the idea that any portion of the Association's finances had been used
to help Andrews establish his periodical was wrong and, revealing a less than total satisfaction
with the Truthteller, he said that there were plans to produce a separate journal in Ireland
which would 'represent truly the propel- sentiments of the Catholics'.5 This lack of confidence
was still evident the following February: an Irish deputation to London led by O'Connell and
feted by the English Catholic aristocracy twice rejected Andrews' personal offer to print and
distribute materials for them 'at no other charge than the cost of paper and journeyman's wages' 6
'OJ, X. December 1824, p. 492.
2 Truthieller. 11, 4 March 1826, p. 741.
Proceedings of the Catholic Association in Dublin, p. 595.
' Acheson, 'Catholic Journalism', p. 146.
Proceedings of the Catholic Association in Dublin, p. 624.
6 Truihieller, 7 April 1825. p. 228.
135 Soon after Andrews was rebuffed by O'Connell and the Irish Catholic Association, the subject
of emancipation once again became a matter of national debate after Sir Francis Burdett, the
radical MP for Westminster, successfully asked the House of Commons to consider the claims
of the Catholics of Ireland. A Relief Bill was then drafted by a committee acting in
consultation with O'Connell. It provided for the veto and exequatur, both to be implemented
by an advisory body, and incorporated two more 'wings' to disfranchise the Irish Catholic
ascendancy or forty-shilling freeholders and render the clergy entirely dependent on the
government for funding.' Although this legislation resembled the Relief Bills of 1813 and
1821 which he had lashed out against, O'Connell gave it his full support and argued in a letter
published by the Dublin press on 12 March 1825 that Catholics could only acquire equal rights
to Protestants if they accepted the specified clauses.2 Andrews cast doubt on whether this was
genuine:
Can it be possible that Mr O'Connell, who has been hitherto so warmly opposed to a Regnum donum, should now - now that he has come into contact with the Parliamentary advocates for Emancipation - be friendly to that baneful measure? Can it be possible that the. man who has so vehemently and hitherto so successfully reprobated ecclesiastical securities and lay boards, now approve of these machines of intrigue and corruption, as harmless and necessary to conciliate groundless prejudices on the one hand and ministerial ambition on the other? Can it be possible that the man who but the other day is stated to have avowed himself before the [Irish Catholic] Association a Radical reformer and a friend to general suffrage, now call upon the same individuals to join him in disfranchising a great part - nay we might fairly say, the whole People of Ireland? And this the writer calls unconditional emancipation! - this is the mode by which the people of Ireland are to be emancipated, and the people of England reconciled to the measure! Really this letter must be a forgery!3
If not the work of an 'audacious forger', Andrews wrote, the letter could only have been
written by O'Connell 'in a moment of delirium, occasioned by a risk of anticipated blessings and a good share of human flattery'. 4 How else, he asked, could O'Connell's decision to consent to measures that were 'repulsive to every independent mind', and which condemned
Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, III, pp. 124-125; Machin, Catholic Question in English Politics, p. 52; OFerrall, 2atholic Emancipation, p. 92.
2 Truthteller, 17 March 1825, p. 203.
Ibid. p. 204.
Ibid.
136 the majority of Irish Catholics to a life of 'prostituted slavery' in paltry return for a partial
deliverance from penal restraints for a select few individuals, be explained?'
According to one contemporary account, Andrews damaged himself 'in the estimation of
thousands'2 by speaking out against O'Connell, and caused a sudden mass exodus of readers
from the Truihieller. In reality, however, the number of O'Connellites who cancelled their
subscriptions only amounted to a few of O'Connell's close friends who 'look not to the public
principle of a measure, but to the personal qualifications of the idol they are fascinated with'.3
The slight loss of custom had no discernible impact on the Truthieller. It certainly did not
worry Andrews who was more interested in the widespread thanks that he received for opposing O'Connell's 'execrable projects' 4 which the House of Lords rejected on 17 May.5
But Andrews was not able to stay complacent for very long: the country was soon gripped by another severe economic depression, and by the early summer of 1825, many of Andrews' readers had been forced to end their patronage of the Truthteller, while other customers had found themselves unable to honour their financial debts to him. In addition to a dwindling income, Andrews was burdened with high taxation payments and inflated production costs. To stay solvent, he had to apply to the British Catholic Association for a loan of125. This help, which appeared meagre when set against the £3000 that Andrews had spent on the Truthteller since its beginning, was of little consequence: on 17 September, he had to announce that it could no longer be circulated as a stamped weekly newspaper.6
Truthieller, 17 March 1825, P. 203.
2 ('aptain Rock in London; Or, The chieftain s Gazette, 1, 29 October 1825, p. 278. This periodical appeared weekly in 1825 and 1826, and a collection of its articles was published in book-form in 1827. The name of its editor has not been identified, but it was produced in London for a pro-Irish readership. For further details, see Patrick O'Sullivan, 'A Literary Difficulty in Explaining Ireland: Tom Moore and Captain Rock, 1824', in (eds.) Roger Swift and Sheridan Gilley, The Irish in Britain 1815-1939 (London, 1989), pp. 266-267.
Truthteller, 1, 15 October 1825, p. 46.
ibid.
For the Relief Bills progress through Parliament, see Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, UI, pp. 126-127; Machin, Catholic Question in English Politics, pp. 56-62; O'Ferrall, Catholic Emancipation, Pp. 95-101.
6 Truthtel/er, 17 September 1825, p.409; 11,4 March 1826, pp. 741-742.
137 This decision did not mark the death of the Truthteller which, in a deliberate ploy by Andrews
to avoid having to pay duty, reappeared on 1 October as an unstamped pamphlet. The first
three numbers of the renewed Truthteller appeared fortnightly, but with the number that was
issued on 5 November, it was once again produced weekly. It was about this time that
Ambrose Cuddon told Andrews to settle a debt dating back to the period of their joint
involvement in the Catholic Miscellany. Andrews unfortunately lacked the means to meet the
demand, having just repaid the British Catholic Association the £125 that it had loaned him,
and despite his efforts to resolve the matter amicably he was arrested and thrown into prison
for the second time. Here he stayed for several weeks until an arrangement with Cuddon was
brokered through arbitration. But no sooner had the ink on the contracts dried than another
severe economic panic swept through the country and within a matter of days Andrews' book
debts worth £600, on which his hopes of fulfilling his commitment to Cuddon depended, were
rendered valueless.'
Only the intervention of a society established at this juncture under the name of the 'Friends of the Truthteller' saved Andrews by raising £320 so that he could continue working as a publisher and maintain his periodical. The 'Friends of the Truthteller' came essentially from the lower orders of society which seemed to place a far greater value on the survival of an independent Catholic press than the Association's elitist Defence Committee. Indeed, Andrews alleged, this mainly aristocratic party had neither assisted the 'Friends of the Truthteller' nor, since his imprisonment, had it fulfilled its pledge to use his professional services, which would have helped him considerably. 2 The donation also allowed him to reimburse Cuddon, but the repayment of the debt nevertheless came too late for Andrews' former colleague who, pursued himself for money by Marlow Sidney, the Treasurer of the British Catholic Association, was forced in June 1826 to sell the proprietorship of the Catholic Miscellany to the publishing firm of Sherwood and Co.3
Truthieller, 1. 5 November 1825, p. 146; II, 4 March 1826, p. 743; IV, 30 September 1826, p. 437; V, 7 October 1826. p. 29, 14 October 1826, pp. 58-60 and 2 December 1826, pp. 290-293; 'Meeting of the Friends of the Truthteller', CS, 111, December 1825; Of, XII, October 1830, pp. 369-370.
2 Truthteller, Ill, 13 May 1826, p. 210; V, 14 October 1826, pp. 60-61.
Cuddon, however, retained the editorship of the Catholic Miscellany and remained in this position for another two years. See below, pp. 161-162.
138 The British Catholic Association's failure to act on Andrews' behalf provoked him in June
1826 to form a rival organisation to dissipate prejudice and elucidate the true principles of
Catholicism through the mass production and widespread distribution of cheap religious and
historical pamphlets.' This fulfilled an idea originally conceived by Andrews in January 1813
when he had urged the readers of the Catholic Magazine and Review to establish a society for
the purpose of 'propagating religious instruction' by printing and circulating appropriate
literature.2 The proposal, however, had been rejected by the Catholic Board and Andrews
waited thirteen years before implementing his plan, with the financial and moral backing of the
working classes, under the name of the Friends of Civil and Religious Liberty'. 3 During the first few months of its life, this organisation enabled Andrews to disseminate over one hundred thousand copies of assorted theological titles. 4 This evidently unnerved the Association which was concerned, as George Silvertop explained to John Lingard in December 1826, that
Andrews was conspiring to 'undermine the operation in London' and thereby get himself appointed as the leader of the English Catholic community.5
More evidence of the threat which Andrews posed to the British Catholic Association came in a series of hard-hitting essays in the Truthteller in the months that followed. 6 These portrayed the Association as a conglomerate of 'officious and unpopular individuals' 7 who stifled free discussion, promoted heterodox principles, disregarded public opinion and sought to obtain a qualified form of relief by ingratiating themselves with sympathetic politicians. The attacks culminated on 29 December 1827 with the appearance of a report 'that the temporizers of the
Catholic body here, in conjunction with, some of the Ministers and our "friends in Parliament",
Truthteller, III, 10 June 1826. pp. 344-349, 24 June 1826, pp. 389-397 and 1 July 1826, pp. 459-460; IV, 16 September 1826, p. 365; VIII, 11 August 1827, pp. 180-181; Of, XII, October 1830, p. 370.
2 Catholic Iviagazine and Review, January 1813, pp. 23-24. Quotation from p. 23.
Trut/iteller, VIII, 11 August 1827, p. 182.
4 /bid., VI, 3 February 1827, p. 149.
CUL, Add. 9418, LP, George Silvertop to Lingard, 12 December 1826.
6 Truthieller, VI. 3 February 1827. pp. 137-ISO; VII, 12 May 1827, pp. 185-199; VIII, 4 August 1827, pp. 141-155 and II August 1827, pp. 177-189; IX, 27.October 1827, pp. 118-126.
7 /bid., VI, 3 February 1827, p. 144.
139 are at work at Rome, to induce the Holy Father to enter into a concordat with the British
Government, with a view to insure the passing of a relief Bill in the ensuing session of
Parliament'. Andrews continued: 'It is said that a select Committee has been formed out of the
General Committee of the British Catholic Association, and that this chosen body of Vetoists
sit in conclave at Norfolk House [the Duke of Norfolk's London residenceJ for the purpose of
arranging a Concordat at Rome'.' It was therefore imperative, he concluded, that the readers of
the Truthieller be 'vigilant and watchful' and provide information to help him in a campaign to
scupper the Association's schemes, on the explicit understanding that the 'most inviolable
secrecy may be depended upon'.2
The story of a cabal still anxious for the veto did not convince one priest from Birmingham,
Thomas Michael McDonnell.3 Believing that it had been fabricated by Andrews to create
mischief, McDonnell decided to admonish him publicly at a general meeting of Catholics held
in London on 22 January 1828. Holding up two copies of the Truthteller for dramatic effect,
McDonnell said that he believed that the report was a 'malicious falsehood'. He then
commented at length in 'very strong and indignant language' on Andrews' promise of
confidentiality for any information about the supposed meeting at Norfolk House, and ended
his speech by observing that the person who asked a Catholic to betray a secret for 'base
purposes' was as 'bad as an assassin'.4 Edward Blount also seized this opportunity to say that
the rumoured concordat was a pure fabrication which, he claimed, had been crafted by
Andrews for the purpose of exciting interest in, and thereby increasing sales of, the
Truthteller.5 Finally, at the end of the conference, another gentleman, introducing himself only
as a former supporter of Andrews, expressed disgust at his shameful conduct and said that he
Truihteller. IX, 29 December 1827, p. 448.
2 Ibid., p. 449.
For McDonnell. see below, Chapter Four. ' Truthieller, X. 2 February 1828. pp. 164-165. See Thomas Michael McDonnell, Substance of Speeches Delivered at the Open Meeting of the Committee of the British Catholic Association, Held in the Committee Roon,s, Thorney Street, London, January the 22'', 1828, James iVheble, Esq. in the Chair (Birmingham. 3rd edition. 1828).
Truthieller, X. 2 February 1828. p. 165.
140 knew of twelve other people who had resolved to cancel their subscriptions to the Truthteller
in protest at its late treatment of the aristocracy and gentry.'
The main outcome of this meeting was that the executive committee of the British Catholic
Association promptly decided to found a weekly stamped newspaper called the Catholic
Journal. It installed as editor one of its most prominent members, an Irish barrister, Michael
Joseph Quin,2 and appointed George Keating and Richard Brown as publishers. A prospectus
was issued on 23 February, seven days before the first number of the Catholic Journal
appeared, which verified that it would promote the interests of the Association and also
showed that it would give English Catholics a real alternative to Andrews and the Truthteller:
A printer of the name of Andrews, who professes to be a Catholic, has made many attempts to supply the sort of organ here alluded to. But he has shewn his zeal for Catholicity by constantly opposing the efforts of the Association; and by pouring out, in a weekly pamphlet, the most atrocious calumnies against the gentlemen forming the executive committee of that body. He calls his work the Truthteller. It is, and has been, from its commencement, a Teller of falsehood, and a fire-brand of discord. It is written in low language, often grossly ungrammatical; it is ignorant and egotistical. It abounds in misrepresentations, sometimes of a personal, sometimes'of a public nature; sometimes invented by the editor himself, sometimes by a little coterie of friends by whom he is surrounded: and, with attacks upon the bishops, the clergy, the aristocracy, the gentry of the body, often made in the most wanton manner, and never retracted even when their absurdity is admitted.3
However, Quin wrote on 5 April, the main purpose of the Catholic Journal was to advance the
cause of emancipation. It was therefore vital, h appealed generally, and to Andrews in
particular, that private animosities and jealousies should be set aside to enable Catholics to
work towards this political goal as 'one harmonious combination'.4
This plea for unity fell on deaf ears because Andrews was too angry at the harsh criticisms of
him in the prospectus for the Catholic Journal. He showed his contempt for what he
Truthieller, X, 2 February 1828, p. 174.
2 Quin was born at Thurles, County Tipperary in 1796. He entered Trinity College, Dublin in November 1811 and was admitted to Lincoln's Inn in January 1818. As well as practising law, Quin was a well- known travel writer and foreign affairs journalist. He died at Boulogne-sUr-Mer on 19 February 1843, apparently in a state of abject poverty. I am grateful to Mr Martin Murphy for supplying me with a proof-copy of his entry on Quin for the forthcoming New DNB.
Cited Truthte/ler, X, 1 March 1828, p. 298. See ibid., XI, 5 April 1828, p. 18; XII, 27 September 1828, p. 446; XIII, 15 November 1828, p. 215; Gillow, Early Catholic Periodicals', p.259.
"Cf. 1,5 April 1828. p. 127.
141 sarcastically labelled the 'Organ of the Select' 1 one week later, lambasting John Kirk for
telling the Association that he approved of the Catholic Journal and would recommend it to
his closest friends. 2 The Catholic Journal evidently came as a godsend to Kirk who, after the
Catholic Spectator folded in December 1826, had privately bemoaned the apparent inability of
English Catholics to support and sustain a 'properly conducted' periodical. 3 However, Kirk
was reproached in the Truthteller for expressing satisfaction with the Catholic Journal and for
showing a willingness to assist the aristocracy and gentry in raising a parliamentary petition in
support of relief measures. Andrews reminded his readers of Kirk's involvement with the old
Catholic Committee and of his friendship with Joseph Berington, adding that 'from my first
knowledge of Catholic politics I freely confess Mr Kirk has been an object of suspicion with
me', and denounced his 'flippant and puerile' letter to the Association as having
misrepresented the Catholic priesthood before the public as ignorant and servile.4
The attack on Kirk marked the beginning of a concerted campaign by Andrews against the
Catholic Journal, and most numbers of the Truthteller contained at least one negative
reference to the 'Association Gazette'. A major cause of contention was the fact that the
Catholic Journal, which consistently declined either to notice or react to the repeated
provocation, advocated securities in any future relief bill. This first became evident at the end
of June 1828 when Quin applauded James Doyle, Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, for
suggesting to the Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, an arrangement to devolve full
control of the Irish Catholic Church from Rome to the local episcopate, acting in direct consultation with the British government. Quin wrote that this plan was 'unobjectionable; it embraces no concession which the Catholics cannot safely make, and it offers all the securities which the Parliament can fairly require'. 5 Andrews, however, felt differently and, replying that
Trutheller, XI, 19Apr11 1828, p. 69.
2 Ci, 1, 22 March 1828, pp. 8 1-82.
CUL, Add. 9419, IF, Kirk to Mark Aloysius Tierney, 24 October 1827.
Truthteller, XI, 12 April 1828, p. 37.
Ci. II, 28 June 1828, pp. 73-74. Quotation from p. 74.
142 it threatened the independent status of the Catholic clergy, told his readers that the projected
scheme gave him the 'greatest pain that can be conceived'.'
Andrews' resistance did not cause Quin to change his opinion, On 14 September, he repeated
that the Catholic Journal would sanction a new form of ecclesiastical administration in Ireland
and stipulated moreover that, in the event of emancipation being granted, Doyle's system
ought to be extended to the English mission which, it was inferred, needed to be regulated
more strictly by the secular authorities.2 Andrews was enraged:
What are the Catholics to say to the sentence which follows? 'We believe (writes the 'organ') that the Government is not at all aware of the number of Catholic missions established in this country, nor of the fact that the British Catholic Bishops and Clergy are much more immediately under the control of the Pope, than the hierarchy of Ireland'. We have been advised to argue the question of securities with temperance; but that Catholic must be gifted with more than mortal forbearance who can remain unmoved, after reading such a base and scandalous insinuation as this against the Catholic Clergy and their successful labours in England. What can the 'organ' mean by exciting the jealousy of Government against the progress of true religion? Does it wish that the Catholic Clergy should be put under the surveillance of the police? That a system of espoinnage should be established under the direction of a 'Board' or 'Committee', to watch the motions and control the labours of the Catholic missioners of this country?3
The Catholic Journal, Andrews spat out, contained 'all the spirit and all the poison of Blue- bookism':4 it had exposed its 'cloven foot' as to leave no doubt of the intentions of 'our security or arrangement-men',5 and he therefore urged the English Catholic clergy and laity to consider the danger that the Association and its periodical posed to them personally and collectively.
Andrews was joined in opposing Quin by George Keating. Judging the same article to be
'repugnant', Keating decided at once to cancel his firm's contract with the Catholic Journal.6
This action, however, failed to check the periodical which found another publisher and
Truthteller, XII, 9 August 1828, pp. 181-187. Quotation from p. 182.
2 cj, II, 14 September 1828. p.250.
Truthteller, XII, 20 September 1828, p. 405.
"Ibid.
Ibid., p. 406.
6 /bid., 27 September 1828, p. 440.
143 remained in circulation until 15 March 1829. It was discontinued at short notice just ten days
after the government, reacting belatedly to Daniel O'Connell's victory in the County Clare by-
election in July 1828, introduced to the House of Commons an Emancipation Bill which
outlined that Catholics should have the right to sit and vote in Parliament, receive the elective
franchise, and be allowed to hold most military and civil offices.' This major political
development was celebrated in the Catholic Journal on 8 March as signalling the beginning of
a 'golden tinie' for Catholics who, it predicted, were soon to be delivered from three centuries
of persecution.2 The main object of the Catholic Journal had therefore been achieved and its
managers accordingly decided that the correct course of action was to bring it to a close after
the release of one final number. This lasi issue included a notice that a monthly version of the
Catholic Journal would be published as from 1 April, but for some unknown reason this never
appeared.3
The planned political settlement was also supported by the Catholic Associations of England
and Ireland which, in determining the relief measures to be, as O'Connell stated, 'good - very
good, frank, direct, complete',4 glossed over the attenthng eccesastca securities. In
exchange for civil emancipation, the government had insisted on the following clauses: Irish
Catholic bishops could not use the titles of the ancient sees which were considered the
exclusive property of the bishops of the Established Church, Roman Catholic rites and
ceremonies could not be performed except inside designated places of worship, and, with the
express intention of suppressing the Society of Jesus which had been formally restored to
England in January, all resident members of Catholic communities and orders were required to
register themselves with the authorities, while foreign-based regular clergy were prohibited
from entering the country. 5 Two civil restrictions were introduced by means of separate bills:
the first, designed to close the Irish Catholic Association, passed through Parliament in
Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation, III, p. 255; Mach in, Catholic Question in English Politics, p. 173; O'Ferrall, Catholic Emancipation, pp. 248-249.
2 cj, lii, 8 March 1829, pp. 77-78. Quotation from p. 78.
3 lbid., 15 March 1829, p. 85.
Cited Ward, op. cit., p. 260.
Ibid., pp. 257-258.
144 February and received the royal assent on 5 March; the second, intended to disfranchise the
Irish forty-shilling freeholders, the very people who had elected O'Connell to Parliament, by
raising the qualification to vote to £10, was introduced alongside the Emancipation Bill.'
The government's offer to Catholics of a conditional and qualified relief incited Andrews to
denounce what in his opinion was a 'measure of penalty and pain' on 14 March. 2 While
benefiting a small clique of treacherous aristocrats and lawyers who could now take up their
seats in Parliament, he wrote, the Emancipation and Disfranchisement Bills placed
unnecessary constraints on the spiritual functions of the clergy, persecuted religious orders,
and deprived the Irish populace of civil liberties. 'What is this', Andrews asked, 'but an
invidious improvement on the bloody acts of Elizabeth and James the First, and deserving the
execration of every honest and truly liberal mind, Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter?' 3 Two
weeks later, with the two items of legislation entering the last stage of their passage through
the House of Commons, Andrews pleaded with his readers to petition the Lords to throw the
'iniquitous' drafts out.4 But this display of opposition proved ultimately futile: the Upper
House ratified the two measures on 10 April, and George IV gave his assent to the
Emancipation and Disfranchisement Acts three days later.5
The political settlement of the Catholic question, according to Charles Butler, 'perfectly
satisfied' the English Catholic community.6 As expected, however, Andrews objected and,
mourning the 'Extinction of Civil and Religious Liberty' through the 'political turpitude' of
the Catholic nobility and squirearchy, poignantly surrounded the first four pages of the issue of
the Truthieller published on 18 April with a thick black margin. 7 This quiet gesture of defiance
Machin, Catholic Question in English Politics, p. 160 and pp. 168-169; O'Ferrall, Catholic Emancipation, pp. 243-244 and p. 249.
2 Truthieller, XIV, 14 March 1829. pp. 357-369. Quotation from p. 360.
Ibid., p. 369.
Ibid., 28 March 1829, p. 434.
Ward, Eve of Catholic Emancipation. III, pp. 260-263; Machin, op. cit., pp. 172-178; O'Ferrall, op. cit., pp. 253-256.
6 UCA, WP, 135, Butler to Nicholas Wiseman, 22 April 1829.
Truthteller, XIV, 18 April 1829, pp. 533-536. Quotations from p. 533.
145 also commemorated the impending death of the Truthteller which appeared a week later for
the last time. Andrews explained that the decision to discontinue the periodical had been
forced on him by external circumstances. The late failure of an agent in the north of England
had cost the publisher dearly, but more serious problems had been caused by those many
readers who, in protest at his recent criticisms of the brokered deal for emancipation, had
cancelled their subscriptions.' To the end, however, he showed the same defiant spirit that had
been his since he first set foot in London in 1813: 'I have stood boldly in the field - no one has
dared to contravene my arguments or invalidate my statements - I am deprived of the sinews
necessary for the contest, but I am not conquered'.2
The end of the Truthteller closed the war that Andrews had waged continuously for sixteen
years against enemies who, he believed, had engineered their own political advancement at the
expense of the Catholic faith and community. This struggle had ended in partial defeat for
Andrews who could at least take some comfort from the fact that the Emancipation Act had not
included the veto or exequatur, and he fired back at his foes in May 1829 with a third series of
the Orthodox Journal. This only lasted until December 1830 and Andrews thereafter retired
from Catholic journalism for nineteen months. In the interim, he published two short-lived
periodicals, the British Liberator and the Constitutional Preceptor, 3 which dealt strictly with
political issues and championed the cause of radical reform. Andrews only returned to
publishing Catholic periodicals in September 1832 with a weekly version of the Orthodox
Journal which he continued to produce until his death in April 1837. However, the products of
his final labours bore little similarity to his earlier work. Whereas before December 1830, his
magazines consistently revealed him to be a fearless and uncompromising writer and editor, those produced in the last years of his life showed, except on rare occasions,4 a person who was less interested in engaging in religio-political controversy than discussing literature and
Truthteller, XIV, 21 March 1829, pp. 397-398.
2 Ibid. p. 398.
According to Brian Carter ('Controversy and Conciliation', p. 24), only a few numbers of the British Liberator were issued early in 1831. However, I have not been able find copies of the work to verify this information. The Constitutional Preceptor appeared weekly between 5 and 19 November 1831 and then monthly between December 183 I and March 1832. It can be consulted at the British Library, London.
' See below, p. 182, p. 184 and p. 186.
146 antiquities. He thus became a peripheral figure, finally conceding control to an old antagonist,
Thomas Michael McDonnell, under whose direction English Catholic journalism entered the next stage in its development.
147 Chapter Four
Priesthood (1830-1836)
During the early nineteenth century, as John Bossy has written, the English Catholic clergy
was liberated from lay seigneurial control and emerged, predominantly in towns and cities, as
an independent and powerful political force.' An important symbol of the new authoritative
priesthood was a monthly periodical, the Catholic Magazine and Review, which began in
February 1831 and was described by Frederick Charles Husenbeth as the 'best conducted and
most influential of Catholic periodicals'. 2 Exclusively owned and managed by the clergy, this
work was the first major challenge to secular control of the English Catholic periodical press
and was also the most significant development in the religious journalism of the era
immediately after emancipation. This chapter aims to provide a detailed account of the
Catholic Magazine, while also chronicling the early life and career of the man who influenced
it most, its acting editor, Thomas Michael McDonnell.
Resident priest at St Peter's church in Birmingham and, in the words of Judith F. Champ, 'one
of the most vivid clerical personalities of the early nineteenth century',3 McDonnell was a paradoxical character who reflected the complexities and contradictions of a community pulled between the forces of liberalism and authority. His political and religious beliefs were deeply grounded in the liberal traditions of the late eighteenth century: he was a populist and democratic rabble-rouser, a free-thinking champion of Gallican principles and political reform who was not afraid to challenge ecclesiastical or secular authority. However, in his re- evaluation of clericalism as a total commitment to society in general, 4 in accordance with the
Bossy, English Catholic Community, Chapter Fourteen, especially p. 323 and pp. 354-358.
2 Husenbeth, 'Catholic Periodicals', p. 3.
Judith F. Champ, 'Priesthood and Politics in the Nineteenth Century: The Turbulent Career of Thomas McDonnell', RH, XVIII, May 1987, p. 289. This essay is based on Champ's discussion of McDonnell in her larger study, 'Assimilation and Separation: The Catholic Revival in Birmingham, c.1650-1850', Ph.D. Thesis (University of Birmingham, 1985).
"Champ, Priesthood and Politics', p. 292.
148 Terentian motto, 'homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto',' McDonnell also promoted the
absolute authority and dignity of the priesthood, arguing that the priest was better qualified
than the layman to understand and discuss political as well as religious issues. In McDonnell's
opinion, there was no area from which a clergyman was barred and no better means of
promoting a cause than periodical journalism, to which he had been introduced at an early age.
McDonnell was born on 4 February 1792 at East Grinstead in Sussex. 2 His father, an Irishman,
died while McDonnell was an infant and he was consequently cared for by a Catholic
gentleman from Oxfordshire, Charles Browne Mostyn, who enrolled his young charge at
Sedgley Park School near Wolverhampton in February 1802. After demonstrating an acute
capacity for learning, McDonnell went to Oscott College in 1806 to complete his formal
education. It was while he was at Oscott, soon after being made a sub-deacon in April 1813, that McDonnell first became aware of the Catholic periodical press, probably by browsing through early issues of the Orthodox Journal in the college library. Soon after making this discovery, and seeking some diversion from his studies, he decided to contribute a piece to the magazine, and during his remaining career at Oscott forwarded an additional 'few literary productions'3 to Andrews for publication, only two of which were signed: a collection of encyclopaedia extracts about the Spanish Inquisition 4 and a 'scanty memoir' of the late
President of Sedgley Park, Thomas Southworth. 5 This new-found hobby, however, did not distract McDonnell from his academic studies and he successfully completed his theological course in September 1815. At the same time, he received the diaconate and was retained by the college as a tutor of classics and prefect of discipline. In September 1817, McDonnell was ordained priest by Bishop Milner and he remained at Oscott for the next five months.
1 CMR, II, December 1832, p. 754. '1 am a man: and I cannot be indifferent to anything that relates to man'.
2 Early biographical details have been collected from BAA, SC/C2 I, Frederick Charles Husenbeth, Memoirs of Parkers: that is Persons Educated at Sedgley Park, or Connected with it by residence in that Establishment, From its First Foundation, in 1763' 2 ms. vols (1867-1868), II, pp. 301 if; Gil/ow, IV, p. 372; Champ, Priesthood and Politics', p. 290.
Truihieller, X, 2 February 1828, p. 147.
OJ, II, October 1814, pp.383-385.
5 lbid., IV, September 1816, pp. 345-347.
149 McDonnell left Oscott College on his twenty-sixth birthday to become chaplain to Henry
Charles Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, at Worksop Manor in Nottinghamshire. In this,
his first clerical appointment, McDonnell administered to the needs of a small congregation as
well as to those of his patron, which he did zealously and energetically: his Protestant friend,
Thomas Asline Ward, certainly thought that he was suited to the work, describing him in 1819
as a 'pleasant young man' who had a high opinion of the 'super-excellence of Roman Catholic
principles'.' But McDonnell still found occasional opportunity to continue his literary pursuits
and, once established at Worksop, began writing articles that were more controversial than the
personal account of Oscott College which he sent to the Catholic Gentleman's Magazine in
the summer of 1818.2 His first foray into public controversy came the following year when, in
two letters to a provincial newspaper, the Sheffield Mercury, he remonstrated with Thomas
Cotterill, an Anglican curate who had vehemently disparaged Catholicism at a meeting held at
Wakefield on 21 April 18l9. In Husenbeth's opinion, McDonnell's outburst in defence of his
religion 'did great good at the time; and served to bring out into light the talents of the young priest till then unknown'. 4 McDonnell's victory over a Protestant antagonist also gave him enough confidence to engage immediately in a heated debate with a more formidable opponent, Bishop Milner. The subject of discussion, conducted in the Orthodox Journal, was the Catholicity of John Lingard's magisterial History of England,5 the first three volumes of which, taking the narrative to 1509, had just been published.
(ed.) Alexander Bell, Peeps into the Past: being passages from the diary of Thomas As/me Ward (London, 1909), p. 257. I am grateful to Ms Sylvia Pybus of Sheffield Central Library for drawing my attention to this book. 2 CGM, 1, July 1818, PP. 406-408; September 1818, p. 588. Sheffield Mercury, 8 May and 12 June 1819. McDonnell republished his letters, and those of the other participants in the debate, in a pamphlet named The Sheffield Controversy (Sheffield, 1819). Unfortunately. I have been unable to find a copy of this work.
Frederick Charles Husenbeth, Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Very Rev. Thomas Michael McDonnell, Canon Theologian of the Cathedral Chapter of Cit/ion: at Si. Mary's Chapel, Bath, on the 29" of October, 1869 (London, 1869), p. 12.
John Lingard, History of England, from the First Invasion By the Romans to the Accession of William and Mary in 16888 vols (London, 18 19-1830). After submitting this thesis for examination, 1 was made aware of Edwin Jones' valuable book, John Lingard and the Pursuit of Historical Truth (Brighton, 2001), which argues that Lingard's History of England, with its rigorous, accurate and pioneering use of original sources, 'makes him worthy of the name of the greatest English historian of the second millennium - the greatest, in fact, since Bede' (p. 122).
150 As Lingard later explained, one of his work's central aims was to promote Catholicism in a
temperate way that would entice rather than repel Protestants.' But in his critique of the
History of England, in which he complained that Lingard had flattered the enemies of
Catholicism, Milner betrayed an ignorance of this objective:
This I say, arid I say it in unison with all the catholics of my acquaintance, who sincerely venerate and love their religion, he has not fulfilled the expectations we had formed of his work: he has not done justice to his own abilities and learning any more than to the victorious merits of his subject: he has not sufficiently refuted the calumnies, nor dissipated the misrepresentations of a Bale, a Barker, a Godwin, an Echard, a Hume, a Smollett, a Littleton, a Goldsmith, and a score more of protestant or infidel writers; nor has he displayed the beauty of holiness, irradiating the doctrines and heroes of catholicity, in the manner that he might have done. In short the History of England... is not a catholic history, such as our calumniated and depressed condition calls for.2
Milner supported his argument by pointing to Lingard's reluctance to use the titles of
canonised saints: 'I am sorry to observe that our catholic historian seems ashamed to give them their acknowledged titles, though sanctioned by the usage of centuries and pronounced by the voice of the church itself'. 3 He referred in particular to Lingard's treatment of Thomas Becket whose ardent piety in defence of traditional clerical privileges from the encroaching civil power had been pejoratively labelled 'enthusiasm' and attributed to his excessive reading, while exiled in France between 1166 and 1170, in the 'canon law, the histories of the martyrs, and the holy scriptures'.4 Mimer also took exception to Lingard's description of Becket, in discussing his murder at Canterbury in December 1170, as a 'martyr to what he deemed to be his duty, the preservation of the immunities of the church'.5
In a second article in the Orthodox Journal,6 Mimer claimed that Lingard's History of
England showed that he had 'as great a horror of miracles as any protestant can possibly wish
'AAW. PP, A68, Lingard to Kirk, 18 December 1819.
2 Of, VII, June 1819, p. 229.
Ibid
Lingard, Hislory of England, II, p. 78. See below, p. 222.
Lingard, op. cit., p. 89.
6 of, VII, August 1819, pp. 302-306.
151 to find in him'.' This was because he had not dwelt on events in the life of the great
ecclesiastical reformer, Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury from 961 until his death in 988,
which showed possible divine approval of celibacy. Lingard overlooked an alleged encounter
between Dunstan and Satan, disguised as a beautiful woman, whose attempt at seduction was
dramatically thwarted when Dunstan applied some red-hot pincers to the devil's nose. He also
did not describe the supposed miracle that took place in 968 at Winchester Cathedral where, at
a meeting held in the refectory to discuss Dunstan's decision to replace married secular clergy
with celibate monks, a crucifix was reported as speaking in favour of the measure. As Lingard
reasoned, both events had no place in a serious historical study because they were not
supported by incontrovertible contemporary evidence. But he did refer to an incident at Caine
in Wiltshire where, at another debate on the matter of the married priests, part of the floor of
the meeting-room collapsed. Those who opposed Dunstan's reforms fell into the ruins, and
were killed or severely injured, while Dunstan and his supporters were left unscathed, the
beams on which they were standing having held firm. To Milner's annoyance, however,
Lingard refused to see this as a miracle, describing it instead as an accident from which
Dunstan and his friends had been saved only by 'good fortune'.2
Thus was started a controversy which lasted seven months, occupied over fifty pages, and
allowed Milner's friends and critics to debate his denunciation of Lingard as an un-Catholic
disparager of authority. Three individuals, writing as 'No Unbeliever', 'Minimus' and 'T',
stepped forward to bolster Milner's prosecution. 3 The letters that attracted most attention,
however, were those signed by 'Candidus'. 4 He defended the 'liberal spirit, which is the
genuine spirit of pure christianity, which is admirably expressed in that well-known adage, in
necessariis unhlas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus carilas, which is equally removed from the
opposite extremes of latitudinarianism on the one hand, and of intolerance on the other, and
'0.1. VII, August 1819, P. 305.
2 Lingard. History of England, I. p. 250.
OJ, VII, September 1819. pp. 353-357 ['No Unbeliever']; October 1819, p. 376 ['Minimus'] and pp. 393-396 ['No Unbeliever']; December 1819. pp. 468-469 [ST'].
The letters of'Candidus' can be found in ibid. July 1819, pp. 266-269; September 1819, pp. 349-353; VIII, January 1820. pp. 22-27; February 1820. pp. 85-86.
152 which we should all do well to cherish and to cultivate'.' He also argued that the History of
England was a masterly work of 'uncommon merit' which did not deserve Mimer's 'unworthy
and frivolous' comments.2
Since the appearance of the first letter from the enigmatic 'Candidus', there has been much
speculation about the author's identity. Milner thought that he was Charles Butler 3 because
'Candidus' praised Butler's 'exemplary forbearance under the provocations he has
experienced from the virulence of your [Milner's] pen'. 4 The letters were also ascribed at the time to John Kirk. John Fletcher likewise came under suspicion on account of his serving Sir
John Throckmorton, the original 'Candidus', 5 at Weston Underwood in Buckinghamshire, and
independent rumours spread that John Lee and Thomas White, 6 who had both succeeded
Milner to the mission at Winchester, were responsible. 7 These theories were unequivocally denied by all of the suspects, prompting Martin 1-laile and Edwin Bonney, writing in 1911, to
name the author as James Wheeler, 8 chaplain at the time of the controversy to the Salvin family of Croxdale in Durham, but no documentary evidence has been found to support this
assertion. 9 The final and most recent theory, suggested by Joseph P. Chinnici,'° is that Lingard
I j, September 1819, P. 350.
2 /bid., July 1819. pp.268-269.
Ibid., August 1819, p. 304.
4 lbid.. July 1819, p.267.
See above. p. 64.
6 White was born in 1764 and educated at Douay. He was ordained in 1791, and on his return to England, worked in the London District. He replaced John Lee as missioner at Winchester in 1810 and died there in 1826. See Anstruther. Seminary Priests, IV, pp. 299-300.
For the old theories about 'Candidus', see AAW, PP. A68, Kirk to Poynter, 9 August 1819; Lee to Kirk, 15 May 1820: ABSI, ML, II, 138, Milnerto Charles Plowden, 5 November 1819; Husenbeth, John Mimer, p. 396; Ward. Eve of Catholic Emancipation, II, p. 282.
8 Born in 1765 and sent to Douay aged eleven, Wheeler was ordained at Paris in 1786. He worked in the London and Northern Districts, and died in 1838. See Anstruther, op. cit., pp. 295-297. ' Haile and Bonney, Life and Letters ofJohn Lingard, p.169.
'° Chinnici, English Catholic Enlightenment, pp. 119 fT.
153 himself was 'Candidus', although external evidence indicates that he had not read Mimer's
critique at the time that the first letter in his defence appeared.'
One person who has not previously been considered in the discussion about 'Candidus' is
McDonnell, despite the fact that there is a case, although one based purely on circumstantial
evidence, that he was responsible for the letters against Milner. His profile certainly fits the
little information revealed in the Orthodox Journal about 'Candidus':2 a Cisalpine and
advocate of independent thought, McDonnell greatly admired Lingard, as his later editorial
career showed.3 The challenge to authority is also consistent with McDonnell's nature, but as a
young priest serving under Milner in the Midland District, and particularly at an early stage in
his career, his anxiety to safeguard his anonymity was understandable, lest his bishop decided
to exact revenge: as John Lee revealed, 'Candidus' had approached Lingard and 'taken off his
vizor to him; yet under the strictest injunction to secrecy; as it was of the utmost importance to
Candidus that he shd. remain unknown to Dr M[ilner]'.4
Lingard was impressed by the 'sufficient castigation' meted out to Milner by 'Candidus' and at
first vowed not to enter the contest.5 By September, however, he was irked that Milner had not
been silenced and decided to inform him through Andrews that he was preparing to attack his
writings.6 Accordingly, the following month, Lingard had the editor publish an article written
under the alias of 'Amicus Justitiae' in which he powerfully revealed Milner to be an
unreliable critic who had misrepresented his work. 7 As one commentator remarked, the
comments of 'Amicus Justitiae' were so direct in their aim that Milner could not possibly have
'AAW. PP, A68, Lingard to Kirk, 15 July 1819; CUL, Add. 9418, LP, Lingard to Butler, 6 September 1819.
2 oi, vii, July 1819. p. 268; September 1819, p. 350.
See below, p. 175.
AAW. PP. A68, Lee to Kirk, 15 May 1820.
CUL, Add. 9418, LP, Lingard to Butler, 6 September 8l9.
6 Ibid., Lingard to Butler. 5 March 1823. ' of, VII, October 1819. pp. 379-380. See AAW. PP, A68, Lingard to Kirk, 7 November 1819; Poynter to Kirk, 13 November 1819.
154 ignored them,' and so humiliated was Mimer by Lingard's rigorous arguments and the letters of 'Candidus' that he tried to end the controversy in November by posing as 'Judex', a supposedly neutral arbitrator, who summarised the contending viewpoints for the public to determine which was the more persuasive.2
In quick reply, Lingard remarked that 'Judex' was suspiciously supportive of Mimer?
'Candidus' also complained that 'Judex' had given undue weigJt to the prosecution's case, and implored Andrews to intervene with a 'steady and unbiassed hand'.4 Having previously commended the editor for his impartiality, McDonnell expected Andrews to be objective, but his trust was misplaced for, after deriding 'Candidus' as puerile and insolent, Andrews awarded Milner the victory. 5 in the light of this decision, McDonnell resigned from the controversy in February 1820, expressing disgust at Andrews' 'low arts of misrepresentation and sophistry', and despite a long association with the Orthodox Journal suddenly became an
'angry disapprover of the publication'. McDonnell's reaction greatly confused Andrews who, unaware that the priest was the person he had slandered as a 'defeated and galled partisan', could not thereafter explain the sudden volte-face of his former subscriber.6
Not content to let the discussion end at this point, Lingard sent Andrews another two letters, written under the pseudonyms of 'Justitiae Amicus' and 'Philorthodoxus', for the April issue of the Orthodox Journal. As Lingard stated in the first letter, his purpose in writing was to expose Mimer's errors and shake the misguided confidence that so many placed in him. 7 This plan was executed in the second letter which, discussing Milner's published history of
Winchester, showed that he had either entirely omitted or downplayed the importance of those miraculous events connected with Dunstan that were 'said to have been wrought in defence of
'AAW. PP. A68, Thompson to Kirk, 12 February 1820.
2 of, vii. November 1819, pp. 423-428.
Ibid., VIII, January 1820, pp. 2 1-22.
Ibid., p. 23.
Ibid., VII. September 1819. p. 353; VIII, January 1820, pp. 27-34.
6 Quotations from ibid. February 1820. pp. 85-86 and Truthteller, X, 2 February 1828, p. 147.
AAW. PP. A68. 'Justitiae Amicus', March 1820.
155 the celibacy of the priesthood',' something for which he himself had had the temerity to condemn Lingard. As Lingard told Andrews, 'if one is to be blamed for the manner, in which he has treated these miracles, I think the other must be blamed also', and he demanded a
'satisfactory explanation' as to why Mimer had not been criticised.2 Andrews, however, was in no mood to oblige and he rejected both contributions; in returning the essays, he commented that they were the 'most worthless and self-refutable' that had ever been submitted to him since the 'commencement of his literary labours'.3
For the two years that followed his conflict with Milner and Andrews, McDonnell abstained from all literary activity. Only when a rabidly anti-Catholic editorial appeared in the Morning
Chronicle on 10 January 1822 did he once again take up his pen. In a letter to the newspaper, written six days later, an incensed McDonnell provided a powerful defence of the Jesuits who had been singled out for attack, and eruditely justified the general principles of Catholicism.4
This caught Milner's attention; writing to McDonnell in October, he stated that 'none of my
Cathc friends possesses a readier pen or more ability than yourself. 5 In recognition of
McDonnell's skill as a controversial writer, Milner in the same letter specially requested him to review his acclaimed treatise of 1818, the End of Religious Controversy, and his late- published Vindication of this work, for the Catholic Miscellany. McDonnell responded by producing for the next number of the Catholic Miscellany a positive appraisal of both titles which gave 'great pleasure and satisfaction to the venerable prelate'. 6 McDonnell further ingratiated himself with Milner when he announced in the Laity's Directory for 1823 his intention to establish a separate mission at Retford which would serve the many Catholics of
AAW, PP. A68, 'Philorthodoxus', March 1820. See above, p. 152; Mimer, History Civil and Ecclesiastical, and Survey of the Antiquities of Winchester, I, p. 158 and pp. 168-169; CUL, Add. 9418, LP. Lingard to Butler, 7 September 1822.
2 AAW, PP. A68, 'Philorthodoxus', March 1820.
Ibid., Andrews to Mr Last, 16 March 1820.
' Morning Chronicle, 10 and 19 January 1822.
NDA, Pre A1/2, Mimer to Thomas Michael McDonnell, 22 October 1822.
6 BAA, SCIC2I, Husenbeth, 'Memoirs of Parkers', 11, p. 315. For McDonnell's review, see CM, 1, November 1822, pp. 509-5 13. This article was printetj despite the reservations of Ambrose Cuddon, the then proprietor of the Catholic Miscellany, who was disinclined at first to advertise Milner's works because they were published by the rival firm of Keating and Brown.
156 that neighbourhood 'who are obliged to go a considerable distance to chapel'.' As an
endorsement of McDonnell's pastoral labours, Mimer donated £5 to this project.2
However, McDonnell was not so appreciated by the Earl of Arundel and Surrey: increasingly
irritated by McDonnell's ambitious ideas and controversial activities, he withdrew from him
his license to educate a few pupils of good family and embargoed his preaching. Convinced
that his situation at Worksop was no longer tenable, McDonnell resigned his post in February
1824 and returned to Oscott. He then went to Giffard House, Milner's residence at
Wolverhampton, to explain his actions. Mimer was at first anxIous that McDonnell, who was
highly esteemed by the congregations under his care, should continue his work at
Nottinghamshire. But after investigating the matter more fully and following talks on the
subject with the Earl of Arundel and Surrey's father, the Duke of Norfolk, Milner decided that
McDonnell had been right to take an independent stand against his patron and agreed to
transfer him to Birmingham, the 'Metropolis of the Middle District'.3
A mission had originally been established in Birmingham by the Franciscans during the reign
of James II, but the church and convent that they had built were demolished by a Protestant
mob in November 1688. The Franciscans then retreated to nearby Edgbaston and remained
there until 1786 when they returned to Birmingham and erected a chapel dedicated to St Peter.
Over the next four decades, this church was served exclusively by Franciscan friars. In 1824,
however, the then incumbent, Francis Edgeworth, was nearing retirement and, with no
possibility that a successor could be found among the depleted ranks of the order, ownership
of St Peter's was placed in the hands of Milner and the secular clergy.4 The principal members
of the congregation now urged Mimer to appoint a priest who would provide strong leadership
and thereby enable the Catholics of Birmingham to 'take that station in the town, to which
'Laity's Directoy (1823).
2 NDA. PreAI/2. Milnerto McDonnell, 3 February 1824.
Ibid., Milnerto McDonnell. 8 March 1824.
"CA'iR, V. March 1834. pp. xliii-xlvi and May 1834. pp. 313-315: BAA, SCIC2I, Husenbeth, 'Memoirs of Parkers', II, p. ii and pp. 323-324: Judith F. Champ. 'The Franciscan Mission in Birmingham 1657- 1824'. RI-!. XXI May 1992. pp. 40-50.
157 their encreasing numbers, wealth and respectability entitled them'.' They particularly wanted
McDonnell as their pastor and, with Mimer's agreement, he started his work at St Peter's on 9
April.
Liberated from lay seigneurial control, McDonnell threw himself immediately and filly into
the life of the mission. His duties as Edgeworth's assistant2 were heavy and involved, in
addition to daily liturgical responsibilities, the regular provision of catechetical instruction and
the management of a charity school. But the demands of a heavy workload proved congenial to
McDonnell who relished the task of rescuing a community which, in his own estimate, was at
this time 'obscure, despised, and persecuted'.3 To improve the status of Catholics in
Birmingham, McDonnell promoted a new spirit of openness by permitting Protestants to
attend the 'powerfully argumentative, and persuasive' doctrinal lectures that he delivered 'in a
style of nervous eloquence' every Sunday evening.4 One Protestant who visited St Peter's in
1824 was a fifteen year-old local schoolboy, Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, who later became, in the
I 830s and I 840s, a leading promoter of the Gothic Revival 5 He stumbled across the chapel
and was warmly welcomed by McDonnell. Soon after this first meeting, Phillipps wrote to
McDonnell, asking to be received as a Catholic. McDonnell agreed to this request after
satisfying himself that Phillipps was well-instructed in Catholic doctrine, and the boy became a
full member of the Roman Church on 21 December 1825 in a poor Irish paviour's cottage
outside Loughborough.6
CMR. V. May 1834, p. 315. Between 1770 and 1830, the Catholic population of Birmingham experienced significant internal growth, increasing ten-fold from ninety to nine hundred households. l'his rapid development, generated by the rise of industrialism, had made necessary the building, between 1807 and 1809. of a second and larger Catholic church. St Chad's.
2 Edgeworth did not retire until the autumn of 1824, at which time McDonnell inherited sole control of the mission.
Thomas Michael McDonnell, The case of the Rev. TM. AkDonnell, Late of St Peter's Mission, Birmingham, Stated By lli,nstdf in a Series of Letters (London. 1842-1844), p. 30.
H usenbeth, Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the I 'erv Rev. Thomas Michael McDonnell, p. 12.
See below, pp. 203-204.
6 Edmund Sheridan Purcell. LUè and Ldllers ofAmbrose Phillipps de Lisle 2 vols (London, 1900), I, pp. 9-Il and p. 14.
158 Although keen to promote friendly relations between Catholics and Protestants, McDonnell did not tolerate Protestant bigotry. He took every opportunity to confront anti-Catholic groups in person and, when thwarted from speaking at a meeting of the Birmingham Sunday School
Society, received Mimer's approval to establish a representative political body, the Midland
Catholic Association, to give local Catholics a public voice in their demands for emancipation.' The Midland Catholic Association met for the first time on 22 September
1824. One month later, McDonnell, as its secretary, attended a central committee meeting in
London, convened to debate donating £50 to Andrews' new weekly paper, the Truthteller.
Resistance to the proposition was led by McDonnell who, clearly still hurt by his treatment as
'Candidus', persuaded the committee to disavow this 'abuser of former trust'. 2 However, when the Midland Catholic Association reassembled on 8 November, McDonnell directed that £5 be forwarded to Andrews in recognition, he explained, of the fact that recent numbers of the
Truthieller had displayed commendable moderation and forbearance. 3 The hidden reason for this new-found generosity was that McDonnell, thinking Andrews would soon off-load the
Orthodox Journal to concentrate exclusively on the Truthteller, suddenly harboured designs of assuming proprietorial control of the former title. This financial gesture was therefore intended to curry favour with Andrews, a strategy that was tested when, early in 1825, McDonnell twice attempted, first by letter and then in person, to purchase the 'good will of the Journal'.4
However, both approaches were rejected by Andrews who insisted that he was not 'in the habit of bargaining for public favours'.5
In immediate response to this rebuff, McDonnell suspended his editorial ambitions, eschewed all journalistic activity and concentrated instead on a range of non-literary projects designed to enhance the profile of Catholicism in Birmingham. Between 1825 and 1826, he renovated the
'NDA, Pre A1/2. Mimer to McDonnell, 21 December 1824; BAA, SC/C21, Husenbeth, 'Memoirs of Parkers', II. p. 325.
2 Truthteller. X, 2 February 1828, P. 148. See Of, X, October 1824, pp. 409-412; CS, II, November 1824. pp. 3 99-400.
Of, X, November 1824, pp. 453-454; Truthteller, X, 2 February 1828, p. 149.
"AAW, PP. A67. McDonnell to Kirk, 8 January 1825.
Truthte/ler, Xl, 5 April 1828. p. 11.
159 property of the mission at a total cost of £1800. He had originally believed that the expense
would be defrayed by a legacy of £200, together with financial contributions from his
congregation. Unfortunately, the churchgoers of St Peter's only provided £125 and the bequest
never materialised. Faced with sole responsibility for repaying the debt, McDonnell decided to
raise funds in the autumn of 1826 by selling a translation of a treatise first published in 1817,
the Discussion A,nicale, by Bishop Trevern of Strasbourg, but he soon abandoned the project
on learning that another priest in the Midlands, William Richmond, had a similar work in
progress. Only the benevolent interference of the Earl of Shrewsbury, who pledged an annual
sum of £ 100, rescued McDonnell from penury and enabled him to continue his involvement in controversial activities concerned with promoting the Catholic cause: in September 1826, he petitioned Parliament for the unconditional repeal of anti-Catholic legislation' and, after calumnious remarks by a local Protestant organisation, he again publicly defended Catholicism the following summer.2
McDonnell's suspension ofjournalistic activity lasted until 1828, but throughout this period he remained a keen reader of the principal journals in circulation. Because of this, McDonnell was alerted at the end of 1827 to Andrews' report in the Truthteller that a conclave of prominent laymen, intent on implementing a relief bill involving a veto by the Crown on the appointment of Catholic bishops, was trying to get Rome to enter into a concordat with the government. Convinced that the story had been fabricated by Andrews, McDonnell admonished him at the next meeting of the British Catholic Association on 22 January 1828 and invited Edward Blount to condemn the article as well. 3 From 1824, McDonnell had avoided all contact with Andrews, but by instigating an official attack on the Truthieller, he made himself vulnerable to Andrews' criticism. Soon after the Association meeting, Andrews launched a counter-assault which, although aimed at both his critics, was especially targeted at
McDonnell. Andrews accused McDonnell, on the basis of his previous dealings with him, of
'CM, VI, November 1826, pp. 346-347 and pp. 365-366; VII, February 1827, p. 108.
2 /bid., VIII, August 1827, p. 143 and September 1827, p. 214; Thomas Michael McDonnell, A Correct and impartial Report of the Discussion which took place at Mount Zion Chapel, Birmingham, Between the Rev. TM McDonnell and the Rev. John Burnet,. on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 7 and 81h of August, 1827 (Birmingham, 1827).
See above, p. 140.
160 being a deceitful holder of grudges who did not deserve a leading position in the Catholic community. Support for this came from an anonymous writer, 'Another of the Many', who in turn was advised by McDonnell to consult a 'better authority than the pages of the
Truthieller'.' Having hereby renewed his direct involvement with the press, McDonnell next wrote in the Catholic Miscellany that any assertions lately printed against him were 'made up entirely of misrepresentation'. 2 This was quickly followed by another letter, sent directly to
Andrews on 10 April, which slammed him for trying to 'blast the harmony, that should exist between a pastor and his flock'.3
In the last letter, McDonnell forewarned Andrews that he intended to make a free and frank defence of his character in the Catholic Journal. He consequently approached Michael Joseph
Quin who replied that the Catholic Journal would not be party to a private controversy, and therefore refused McDonnell access. 4 McDonnell was forced to write again to Andrews:
I believe many of your readers and partisans to be zealous Catholics and virtuous men. Respect for such persons induced me to desire to defend myself against your misrepresentations; and in the progress of that defence I should have been obliged to explain the real nature of your claims to their confidence. The manner in which you have repeatedly treated those correspondents who dissented from you, assured me that I could not entrust my defence to you, and my distrust has been confirmed.. .Necessity has no law. I suppose I must submit in silence to your abuse. To such abuse I can personally have no objection, as it confirms me in the hope that I have acted rightly;.. .you have, in all that you have said against me, not once stated the truth; but that every statemeiit contains such a mixture of truth and falsehood, that, while the truth gives currency to the falsehood, the falsehood imparts its character to the truth. With this I take leave of you.5
McDonnell at least had the satisfaction of knowing that he had secured proprietorial control of
a magazine, the Catholic Miscellany, which in itself was a significant victory over Andrews.
The publishing firm of Sherwood and Co., which had owned the Catholic Miscellany since
June 1826, had lately failed leaving the editor, Ambrose Cuddon, with sole responsibility for
its continuation. However, realising that he lacked the financial resources to sustain the work,
Truthieller, X, 2 February 1828, pp. 145-158; 1 March 1828, PP. 304-306; 8 March 1828, PP. 337-338. Quotation from p. 338.
2 CM, IX, April 1828, P. 268.
Truthieller, Xl, 19 April 1828, p. 87.
Cf. I, 19 April 1828. p. 169.
Truthieller, Xl, 3 May 1828, p. 179.
161 Cuddon gave notice that it was for sale late in March.' Within days of this advertisement,
McDonnell made his first approach; the transaction was completed by mid-April.
Writing two weeks after he bought the Catholic Miscellany, McDonnell vowed that he would
not use it to continue hostilities between himself and Andrews. But any promise that the
Catholic Miscellany would not be used against him sounded hollow to Andrews who, on the
basis that the London office of the periodical was immediately relocated by its new owner to
premises in Thorney Street shared with the British Catholic Association, suspected that
McDonnell was colluding with the Catholic aristocracy to drive him out of business. 2 A
separate doubt concerning McDonnell's impartiality was also raised by Thomas White who, in
the autumn of 1828, confided in Lingard his concern that the Catholic Miscellany had lately
become a mouthpiece for the Jesuits:
Even that publication, wh. appears, at 1st sight, to be a paper of general intentions, if I may so express myself, the Cath Miscelly, seems, upon closer inspection, to be in some way under the direction & management of these... Fathers. Not only the biographical notices, wh. are now, I. think, regularly inserted, but many occasional articles & passing reflections, both in the course of the work, & in the News department &c, seem to be dressed a Ia Jésuite, & intended to recommend the Order to the admiration of the Readers: in other & more significant words, ad majorem Societatis gloriam.3
These aspersions were resolutely denied by McDonnell who declared, one year after taking up his editorial post, that he had neither involved the Catholic Miscellany in any dispute nor sacrificed it to any party. On the contrary, McDonnell said, he had consistently and independently managed the publication as a neutral vehicle of intelligence, the general aim of which was to advance religion.4
Outside his involvement in producing a non-controversial magazine, McDonnell remained as disputatious as ever. During his editorship of the Catholic Miscellany, he emerged as a leading opponent of the British Society for Promoting the Religious Principles of the Reformation.
This militant Protestant body had been founded in May 1827 to wage a polemical war against
'Ci, 1, 22 March 1828, p. 96.
2 Truthteller, Xl, 5 April 1828, p. 9.
UCA, LP, l569a, Thomas White to Lingard, 7 October 1828.
"CM, Xl. April 1829. p. 195.
162 Catholics in Ireland; by the end of the year, it established a foothold in England.' McDonnell
confronted the Reformationists for the first time in the summer of 1828 when he attended, and
successfully disrupted, its two major rallies at Bristol and Birmingham. Then, in December,
McDonnell took part in a debate held by the Reformation Society at Bradford and brought the
ensuing bad-tempered discussion to a premature end by leaving the proceedings in protest at
the anti-Catholic bias of the chairman. 2 After this encounter, the priest took 'no inglorious
part'3 in the political campaign for Catholic relief, building up his reputation as an activist, and
became so immersed in this struggle that he temporarily had to delegate responsibility for the
Catholic Miscellany to 'several highly-talented contributors'. 4 However, McDonnell continued
to use the press and, while the Catholic Emancipation Bill was passing through Parliament,
forwarded a series of letters to the Wolverhampton Chronicle, refuting the arguments made
against relief measures by Dr Booker, a local Anglican vicar. They were then reprinted in the
Catholic Miscellany,5 of which McDonnell resumed total control after emancipation was
attained in April 1829.
During the months that followed, McDonnell attended diligently to his literary and pastoral
duties. This remained the situation until February 1830 when he again decided to confront the
Reformationists at a meeting held in Wolverhampton. Now, however, McDonnell offered an
ineffective opposition and, according to one Catholic observer, James Austin Mason, the
'deputation-gentlemen' secured a 'conscious triumph'. 6 Seizing on McDonnell's failure to
expose the 'strolling quacks in Biblical disputation', Andrews countered that the best tool in
religious controversy was the printed,, not the spoken, word and, demonstrating an absolute
trust in the press, dedicated his revived Orthodox Journal to the exclusive task of refuting
The best account of the British Reformation Society can be found in John Wolfe, The Protestant Crusade in Great Britain, 1829-1860 (Oxford, 1991), Chapter Two.
2 CM XI, January 1829, pp. 3-7; February 1829, pp. 85-87; Wolfe, op. cit., pp.47-48.
McDonnell, Case, p. 30.
' CM. Xl, May 1830, P. 228.
Ibid., August 1829, pp. 421-427: September 1829, pp. 452-456; October 1829, pp. 504-509. 6 Of, XII, June 1830, p. 205.
163 Protestant calumnies.' McDonnell, on the other hand, remained convinced that the
Reformation Society could be challenged effectively in person and therefore proclaimed that
he would attend all future anti-Catholic assemblies organised in or around the Midlands. 2 To
ensure that he had time to fulfil this commitment, McDonnell resigned his responsibility for
the Catholic Miscellany at the beginning of May, which abruptly ended the history of the
periodical and appeared to draw a line under his own editorial career.3
The end of the Catholic Miscellany coincided with a lull in the activity of the Reformationists.
They did not renew their campaign until August 1830 and, remaining true to his pledge,
McDonnell, accompanied by five other Catholics, locked horns that month with the Protestant
party in a debate held at Cheltenham. The discussion was held over five days and ended only
when the Catholic delegation withdrew, satisfied that it had irrefutably demonstrated the necessity of an infallible rule of faith.4 Filled with confidence from this victory, McDonnell
returned to Birmingham and intensified his opposition to the Reformation Society. First, as the
introduction to an oratorio hosted by McDonnell which attracted many Protestants, he arranged the presentation of a lecture on auricular confession. Then, on 29 August, he announced from the pulpit that at Cheltenham he had persuaded one person to renounce
Protestantism. On the same occasion, he also gave notice that a large number of Catholic converts would be received at St Peter's church the following Sunday. 5 Finally, between 29
September and 13 October, McDonnell defended Catholicism at a series of debates organised by the Birmingham Auxiliary Reformation Society.6
'Of, XII, February 1830, P. 72; March 1830, p. 81 and pp. 84-86. Quotation from p. 84.
2 Wolverhampton Chronicle, 21 April 1830.
CM, Xl, May 1830, p. 228.
"Of, XII, September 1830. pp. 325-33 1; CMR, 1, April 1831, pp. 134-135; Wolfe, Protestant Crusade, p. 53.
Birmingham Journal, 4 September 1830.
6 Ibid., 2 October 1830; Aris's Birmingham Gazelte,4 and 18 October 1830; Champ, 'Assimilation and Separation', p. 239.
164 McDonnell's personal crusade certainly had some impact, making one local Protestant activist,
Martin Wilson Foye, fear for the spiritual fortitude of his 'weak or uninformed brethren'.1
Nonetheless, a group of Catholic secular priests in the Midland District, inspired by
McDonnell's activities against the Reformationists, wanted a more representative and public
means of resistance. Led by John Kirk, they advocated establishing a monthly periodical for
the purpose of reviewing not only 'every Catholic work of merit', but also those publications
written 'against our religious principles, or practices'. 2 This plan, the first step in what evolved
as the Catholic Magazine and Review, was unanimously endorsed on 23 September by
seventeen clergymen belonging to the Oscott Conference. They agreed that the publication
should be edited in Birmingham by McDonnell, whose assistance had been commandeered,
with the help of Edward Peach, the priest at St Chad's church. 3 The members of the Oscott
Conference gave their support on the understanding that the editors would be held accountable
to a committee selected by themselves which would have authority to 'examine, half-yearly or
oftener, the state of the concern'.4
The approval of eminent priests, like Fletcher and Lingard, was then sought and, as Kirk
enthused to Frederick Charles Husenbeth, chaplain at Cossey Hall in Norfolk, the majority of
those consulted 'approve of it, & wish it well, will take it & recommend it'. 5 There was one
serious objection, however, by eleven priests affiliated to the Aston Conference: on 5 October,
they rejected McDonnell and Peach, and instead jointly nominated Husenbeth and John Abbot,
a missioner working at Norwich,6 as editors. A meeting was held at Oscott the next week to
Birmingham Journal, 4 September 1830. Foye was sufficiently concerned to launch a counter-assault in Three Letters Addressed to ihe Rev. T. M. McDonnell, Roman Catholic Missionary of Saint Peter's Chapel, Birmingham; On His Argument From the Fathers, in Support of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation (Birmingham, 1830).
2 CUL, Add. 9419, TP, Kirk to Tierney, 29 September 1830.
Peach was born in 1771 and ordained in 1796 at St Edmund's. In 1806, he founded the mission of St Chad's and worked on it until his death in 1839. See George Spencer, Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Rev. Edward Peach, On the 12" of September, 1839, By the Hon. and Rev. George Spencer, Of St Mary's College, Oscott. To Which is Prefixed a Short Memoir of His Life (Birmingham, 1839).
'I CMR. 1, February 1831, p. 4.
NDA, Pre A 1/2. Kirk to Husenbeth, 14 October 1830.
6 Born in 1797 and educated at Oscott, Abbot was ordained in 1821. He died in 1858. See Fitzgerald- Lombard. p. 65.
165 vote on the editorship, but McDonnell withdrew his 'obnoxious name' before the proceedings
began and thus enabled the election of the East Anglians to go uncontested) When told of this
decision, Husenbeth and Abbot proved unwilling to manage a Birmingham-based publication,
living as they did at the extremity of the Midland District, and therefore declined the office.
The Oscott Conference therefore reassembled on 9 November and settled the matter by
appointing an editorial syndicate of five priests: Thomas Michael McDonnell, John Kirk,
Edward Peach, Francis Martyn 2 and John Gascoyne.3
The editors were entrusted to formulate a final design for the Catholic Magazine, which they did before the first week of December. In the prospectus presented to the Oscott Conference around this time, they decreed that the publication's fundamental purpose, in line with the original scheme, was to defend Catholicism against Protestant calumnies. This object, it was suggested, could be realised by reviewing and refuting hostile tracts and books. However, the editorial body wanted the Catholic Magazine to appeal to a wide audience, and therefore stipulated that it should convey domestic and foreign intelligence, and incorporate articles that were concerned more generally with literary and historical subjects. Consistent with this
'liberal and enlarged plan', the editors also suggested that the Catholic Magazine's pages should be made available for readers to debate a whole range of topics with moderation and forbearance.4 Some credit for the expanded design must be given to Mark Aloysius Tierney, the eminent Catholic historian and chaplain to the Duke of Norfolk, 5 who wrote to Kirk:
For my own part I have always thought that a merely Catholic Review & Intelligence could scarcely possess those attractions which are absolutely l NDA, Pre Al/2, Kirk to Husenbeth, 14 October 1830.
2 Born in 1782, Martyn was ordained at Oscott in 1805. At the time that the Catholic Magazine was founded, he was serving the mission at Walsall. He died there in 1838. See George Spencer, Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Rev. Francis Marlyn, Catholic Pastor of Walsall, July 25, 1838, in the Catholic Chapel at Walsall, By the Hon. and Rev. George Spencer, Catholic Pastor of Westbromwich, Staffordshire. To Which is Prefixed, A Memoir of the Life of the Rev. Francis Martyn, Drawn Up By One of His Earliest Friends, the Rev. Robert Richmond (Birmingham, 1838); Gillow, IV, pp. 496-500.
Gascoyne was born in 1800 and studied at Oscott where he was ordained in 1828. He was teaching at Oscott when the Catholic Magazine was founded. Gascoyne died in 1880. See, Fitzgerald-Lombard, p. 73 and p. 77.
The prospectus was reprinted in CMR, 1, February 1831, pp. 1-4. Quotation from p.3.
Born in 1795. Tierney was educated at St Edmunçl's and ordained there in 1818. He served in London until 1824 when he became the Duke of Norfolk's chaplain at Arundel Castle. Tierney kept this post until his death in 1862. See Gillow, V. pp. 545-547.
166 necessary to secure its success. To make it generally popular, to diffuse its principles, & to render the refutation of anti-Catholic works available, by carrying it into the bosom of the Protestant community, the publication should, I think, embrace such topics of literature & general reading as would be attractive to readers of every denomination. Without abandoning its Catholic character, the essays, letters &c. - which it is proposed to admit, might be allowed to take a wider range than that which will be interesting solely to the Catholic body: historical & antiquarian notices might be inserted, disquisitions on the principal literary topics of the day might find a place in its pages, and the work, which it encreased in interest, might thus be rendered more durable by being placed on a broader basis. This is the kind of work which I have long wished to see, - one which to the Catholic objects mentioned in the Circular should unite those topics of general interest which would serve as passports beyond our own pole, & induce our Protestant neighbours to make acquaintance with our writings.'
In essence, the work that both Tierney and the committee projected was distinctly Cisalpine or,
as Chinnici has styled it, an 'organ of enlightened opinion'.2 From the beginning, the Catholic
Magazine paraded its liberalism by incorporating into the design of its front cover the
Augustinian motto, 'in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas', favoured by
Cisalpines since the appearance of the Catholic Magazine and Reflector thirty years before.3
The prospectus was approved by the Oscott Conference and copies were sent nationwide to
every Catholic priest. Promoting the idea that a periodical sustained by a united clergy was
necessary in the interest of religious truth, the editors entreated all the recipients to provide
'advice, countenance, talents & literary contributions'. 4 Every priest was also invited to
purchase an equal share in the proprietorship of the Catholic Magazine with an investment of
£1. This offer, which the managerial committee hoped would raise the basic £100 required to
execute the plan, was not extended, however, to the Catholic laymen to whom the circular was
also addressed.5 Although keen to secure a general readership, the editors were determined to
establish the journai as the exclusive property of the priesthood: direct lay involvement was
restricted to 'Mr Stone, of Birmingham; Mr Booker, and Messrs Keating and Co. of London;
'CUL, Add. 9419, TP, Tierney to Kirk, 9 October 1830.
2 Chinnici, English Catholic Enlightenment, p. 144.
See above. pp. 73-76.
CUL, Add. 9419. TP, Kirk to Tierney, 29 September 1830.
NDA, Pre A112, Kirk to Husenbeth, 14 October 1830; DAEA, XPDI7/I-3, Foley-Husenbeth Correspondence. Foley to Husenbeth, 1 January 1831.
167 Messrs Rockliff and Duckworth, of Liverpool; and Mr Williams, of Cheltenham',' who were chosen to print, publish and distribute the Catholic Magazine. This policy annoyed Charles
Butler who, despite promising Kirk that he would purchase an annual subscription, privately expressed a desire to see the Catholic Magazine 'dropped'.2 Even when it became apparent late in December that not enough funds had been collected, proposals to change the constitution were resisted. The editors instead accepted a combined loan offlOO from William
Foley, then acting as President of Oscott College in place of Henry Weedall, and Francis
Martyn which, when added to the original capital of £70, enabled the Catholic Magazine to appear for the first time at the beginning of February 1831.
Selected to wield executive control over the editorship, it was appropriate that McDonnell should write the opening address for the first number of the Catholic Magazine. The main purpose of this article was to rectify any damage inflicted by Andrews; in the final issue of his
Orthodox Journal, he had, like the proverbial kettle calling the copper black, denounced the projected work as a political vehicle of sedition. 4 Andrews did have grounds for believing that the Catholic Magazine would follow a strong political programme, as McDonnell had lately begun what he later called the 'most political period of my life'. 5 Since January 1830, an organisation named the Birmingham Political Union, led by a local Tory banker, Thomas
Attwood, had been agitating for parliamentary reform in reaction to two decades of intermittent economic crises.6 Believing it to be his prerogative to improve the temporal as well as spiritual well-being of his congregation, McDonnell decided to join Attwood in promoting this 'benevolent and patriotic work', and was received into its membership on 26
'CMR, I, February 1831, p.S.
2 CUL. Add. 9418. LP, Butler to Lingard, 15 December 1830.
DAEA, XPDI7/1-3, Foley-Husenbeth Correspondence, Foley to Husenbeth, 1 January 1831; NDA, Pre Al/2, CMR Report, July 1832.
Of, XII, December 1830, pp. 452-462.
McDonnell, Case, p. 33.
See Asa Briggs, 'Thomas Attwood and the Economic Background of the Birmingham Political Union', Cambridge Historical Journal, IX, 1948, pp. 190-216; Asa Briggs, 'The Background of the Parliamentary Reform Movement in Three English Cities (1830-2)', Cambridge Historical Journal, X, 1952, pp. 293-317; Michael Brock, The Great Reform Act (London, 1973), especially p. 62 and pp. 77- 78; Carlos Flick, The Birmingham Political Union and the Movements for Reform in Britain, 1830-1839 (Folkestone, 1978).
168 July as 'a gentleman, and a Christian'.' He was also convinced that his impartial guidance would redeem this party from some of the 'errors and excesses' 2 of radicalism: as McDonnell later clarified, he was not 'an amateur to revolutions, a friend to spoliation and anarchy', but wanted 'erroneous principles and wicked practices thoroughly eradicated from the body politic' through legal and peaceful means.3 In drawing attention to the Catholic Magazine's close association with a political activist, Andrews, himself engaged in the struggle for constitutional change as a member of the Metropolitan Political Union, 4 particularly hoped to persuade Peter Augustine Baines, the Vicar Apostolic of the Western District, 5 to withdraw his
support for the new periodical, which had been granted on condition that it avoided 'politics
and party questions'.6
In his introductory statement, McDonnell implicitly assured Baines and other readers that
Andrews was incorrect. Dedicating the periodical 'ad majorem Dei gloriam', he affirmed that
religion was the 'absorbing object of the Catholic Magazine' and poignantly quoted Mimer:
'Our only politics are Religion; our only party is the Church'. 7 This assetticn of orthodoxy
thwarted Andrews' cynical attempt to sabotage the Catholic Magazine: Baines' supportive
statement was reprinted with permission in the next number and the editors revealed that the
proprietorship, which had consisted of thirty-seven priests three months before, now boasted
sixty-one members. 8 It was also apparent that Andrews had caused no commercial harm
because all seven hundred and fifty copies of the first number had been distributed within one
'Report of the Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Birmingham Political Union, Held at Mr Beardsworth 's Repository, on Monday, July 26, 1830 (Birmingham, 1830), p. 14.
2 McDonnell, Case, p. 31.
CMR. IV, August 1833, p. 10.
" (ed.) D.J. Rowe, London Radicalism, 1830-1843: A Selection from the Papers of Francis Place (London, 1970), p. 2.
Baines was born in 1787. He studied at Ampleforth and was professed a Benedictine in 1804. Baines remained at the college until 1817 when he was moved to Bath. In 1823, he was made coadjutor of the Western District and Bishop of Sliga in partibus. Baines became Vicar Apostolic in 1829 and presided over the Western District until his death in 1843. See Gillow, 1, pp. 105-110.
6 CMR, 1, February 1831, p. 4.
Ibid., pp. 5-6.
OJ, XII, December 1830, p. 452; CMR, I, March 1831. pp. 67-69.
169 month of appearing. Sales were admittedly low in Lancashire which remained loyal to
Andrews, but the editors were comforted by the warm reception in other areas, especially
London, and decided on the basis of this evident demand to increase the print run of
succeeding issues to one thousand copies.' In fact, the only blemish affecting the first number
of the Catholic Magazine was its many errata which, Kirk explained, was 'one of the
inconveniences of having so many editors; one, it seems, depending on another; & between
them the correction is neglected, or incomplete'. 2 But this technical difficulty could not
prevent Foley from telling Husenbeth on 22 February that the 'magazine goes on
swimmingly'.3
As soon as the threat from Andrews had been removed, however, another source of opposition
emerged in the form of the Protestant Journal. This was established by Josiah Ailport, the
Anglican vicar at St Martin's church in Birmingham, as a standard against 'anti-Christian
superstition, specious idolatry, and seductive miracles'.4 In the opening number, published at
the end of February 183 , Aliport condemned the Catholic Magazine as 'trash and falsehood
and poison', and he explained that the Protestant Journal had specifically been formulated as
a corrective to this 'contemptuous' production. 5 But, in justifying his work, the vicar made no
reference to his skirmish the previous autumn with McDonnell. This had begun when Allport
publicly blamed the Catholic party for disrupting the debates organised by the Birmingham
Auxiliary Reformation Society, a charge which McDonnell sternly denied. 6 Although his
motive was not disclosed, Ailport undoubtedly anticipated that he could renew this earlier conflict, and thereby attempt to undermine his 'sophistical' counterpart, by juxtaposing the
Protestant Journal with the Catholic Magazine.7
'NDA, Pre Al/2, Foley to Husenbeth, 22 February 1831 and CMR Report, July 1832; AAW, BP, A72, Kirk to Robert Gradwell, 17 March 1832.
2 UCA, WP, 169, Kirk to Wiseman, 30 April 1831.
NDA, Pre A1/2, Foley to Husenbeth, 22 February 1831. ' Protestant Journal, I, February 1831, p. 16.
6 Aris s Birmingham Gazette, 11 and 25 October 1830; 1 and 8 November 1830.
Protestant Journal, 1, February 1831, p. 49.
170 McDonnell and his fellow editors disregarded Aliport entirely and proceeded to establish the
Catholic Magazine as a concern which realised a slight profit of 'between £15 and 20
monthly" during the early stage of its development. One reason for this success was the
considerable calibre of the literary material that the editorial committee received from the 'best
writers of the Catholic body'. 2 The leading contributor was Bishop Robert Gradwell, coadjutor
to James Braniston in the London District since June 1828. He not only conveyed regular
domestic and foreign intelligence, but also endowed early editions of the Catholic Magazine
with an account of the English College at Douay3 which provided some relief to McDonnell's
controversial editorials against the Reformation Society. The Catholic Magazine also played
host to Nicholas Wiseman, Gradwell's successor as Rector of the English College at Rome and a Syriac scholar of some renown who had been made Professor of Oriental Languages at the
Roman University in 1828. Having greeted the establishment of the journal with 'ineffable delight',5 he quickly furnished it with two articles on the Chair of St Peter and Catholic missions in North America.6 Responding to the latter paper, Kirk wrote to Wiseman in July
183 1, giving him carte blanche as to further articles:
Your most acceptable present to our Magazine came safe last week, & on Monday I laid it before the Editors at our weekly meeting - They commissioned me to return you our sincere thanks for your valuable & highly interesting communication, & to say, that you need be under no apprehension of 'monopolizing the magazine'; because you are perfectly welcome to every page of it, if you can fill it with such communications, as you have hitherto favoured us with... Respecting any future communications, we request you will choose your own subjects, knowing as you do from No. I what is the general plan of the magazine, & that our primary object is to further the cause of Religion in general & particularly in this country. There are many subjects, that, from local circumstances, can be well treated here; but there are many others, that can be much better discussed at Rome, where
1 UCA. WP, 172, Kirk to Wiseman, 7 July 1831.
2 BAA. SC/C2l, Husenbeth, 'Memoirs of Parkers', II, p.33!.
CMR, I. February 1831, pp. 14-26; March 1831, pp. 70-75 and pp. 89-101; April 1831, pp. 129-148; May 1831. pp. 208-216; June 1831, pp. 257-276; July 1831, pp. 333-339; August 1831, pp. 397-402; September 1831. pp. 457-466. See ABSI, SMI7, Kirk Letters, Gradwell to Kirk, 8 and 21 March 1831; AAW. BP. A72, Kirk to Gradwell, 17 June 1831 and 17 March 1832.
Wiseman was born in 1802 in Spain to an Irish family. He was educated at Ushaw from 1809, before leaving for the English College at Rome in 1818. Wiseman was ordained in 1825. There are two particularly useful biographies: Wilfrid Ward, The Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman 2 vols (London, 1897) and Richard J. Schiefen, Nicholas Wiseman and the Transformation of English Catholicism (Shepherdstown, West Virginia, 1984).
UCA, WP, 776. Wiseman to Husenbeth, 22January 1831. b CA'IR, I, May 1831, pp. 193-207 and August 1831, pp. 402-415.
171 you have such a mass of necessary documents, & have free access to them. From these you can choose, much better than we can point out, what will best suit our purpose; & whatever you choose will be most acceptable to us.
As a further sign of how highly the editors esteemed his work, Kirk also offered Wiseman a
share of the proprietorship, which he accepted.'
The vital connection with the Holy See that Wiseman gave the Catholic Magazine was consolidated by Henry Weedall, the President of Oscott College. 2 Recuperating from illness in
Rome, where he had lived since the previous autumn, Weedall became its foreign correspondent. The earliest dispatches that he sent to Birmingham dealt exclusively with the enthronement of Pope Gregory XVI in February 1831 and the subsequent upsurge of political
insurrection across the Papal States. 3 B1 April, however, the revolution had been suppressed and Weedall travelled to Naples where, at the church of San Gennaro, he witnessed the
liquefaction of the blood of St Januarius, Bishop of Benevento, who had been martyred in 305.
In a lengthy and detailed letter to the editorial committee, Weedall recorded his observations
and, dismissing any scientific explanation or possibility of deception, argued that divine
intervention alone had caused the congealed substance, preserved in a glass vial, to liquefy
when brought into proximity with St Januarius' head, which was also kept at the church.4
Weedall's letter flew directly in the face of the Age of Reason. Early in the eighteenth century, the essayist, poet and statesman, Joseph Addison, having twice watched the melting of St
Januarius' blood, denounced it as 'one of the most Bungling Tricks that I ever saw'. 5 This
opinion was supported by Addison's contemporary, the Cambridge divine, Conyers
UCA, WP, 172, Kirk to Wiseman, 7 July 1831.
2 Weedall was born in 1788, educated at Oscott and ordained in 1814. He served as President of Oscott from 1825 to 1840, and died in 1859. See Frederick Charles Husenbeth, The Ljfe of the Right Reverend Monsignor Weedall, D.D. (London, 1860); Fitzgerald-Lombard, p. 28.
BAA, B53, Henry Weedall to Kirk, 12 February 1831; UCA, WP, 780, Weedall to Wiseman, 2 March 1832; CMR. 1, March 1831. pp. 127-128; April 1831, pp. 176-182; May 1831, pp. 250-254; June 1831, pp. 3 09-3 10; Husenbeth, op. cit., p. 168. " CMR, 1, July 1831, pp. 345-351. See UCA. WP, 778, Wiseman to Husenbeth, 18 May 1831; Husenbeth, op. cit., pp. 169-170; Chinnici, English Catholic Enlightenment, pp. 137-139.
Joseph Addison, Remarks on Several Parts of Italy, &c. In the Years I 701, /702, 1703 (London, 2" edition, 1712), p. 149.
172 Middleton, who gave his own explanation as to how this 'old cheat' could have been performed 'without the help of a miracle':
During the time that a Mass or two are celebrated in the Church, the other priests are tampering with this phyal of blood, which is suspended all the while in such a situation, that as soon as any part of it begins to melt by the heat of their hands, or other management, it drops of course into the lower side of the glass which is empty; upon the first discovery of which, the miracle is proclaimed aloud, to the great joy and edification of the people.'
This scepticism did not confine itself to early eighteenth-century Protestant opinion. In 1813, it affected the Irish Catholic priest and author of A Tour Through Italy, John Chetwode Eustace, who questioned whether the substance in the vial was indeed St Januarius' blood, and sneered at those of his communion who accepted the miracle without investigating the matter thoroughly.2 However, soon before his death in August 1815, Eustace did privately confide that he was wrong to doubt the liquefaction and planned to publicise his belief in it in a revised edition of his work which he was unable to complete.3
As reactionary as his letter to the Catholjc Magazine was, Weedall had not intended'to stir up controversy, and he might not have posted it had he had any inkling that it would reopen the argument over miracles between liberals and traditionalists for the first time since Berington and Milner had traded punches on the subject nearly forty years before. 4 The opening blows were exchanged in September and October 1831. Employing the pseudonym of 'HY', the first and last letters of the name of his mission, John Lingard argued in an article that, before
'raising a natural event to the dignity of a miracle', it must be demonstrated that the known laws of science had not been functioning. 5 He then provided a rational explanation for the
Conyers Middleton, A Letter from Rome, Shewing an exact Conformity between Popery and Paganism: Or, The Religion of the Presen't Romans, derived from that of their Heathen Ancestors 5Ih (London. edition, 1742), pp. 208-210.
2 John Chetwode Eustace, A Tour Through Italy, Exhibiting a View of its Scenery, its Antiquities, and its Monuments: Particularly as They are Objects of Classical Interest and Elucidation: With an Account of the Present State of its Cities and Towns; and Occasional Observations on the Recent Spoliations of the French 2 vols (London, 1813), 1, Pp. 49 1-492.
CMR, II, March 1832, pp. 96-97.
' See above, p. 67.
CIt'IR, 1, September 183 I, pp. 484-487. Quotation from p: 484. See UCA, LP, 623, Lingard to Robert Tate, 7 December 1831; 368, Lingard to Daniel Rock, 11 January 1832; Haile and Bonney, Life and Letters ofJohn Lingard, p. 244.
173 liquefaction, arguing that the solid matter had melted naturally when transferred from the cool
treasury to the warm sanctuary. Of course, he accepted, this could be proven only by
ascertaining, with a thermometer, the atmospheric conditions in which the substance altered:
'If it always happens at the same or nearly the same temperature', he wrote, 'the mystery will
be solved; if at very different degrees of heat, the solution, which is here attempted, must be
abandoned'.' This empirical approach, however, was contested by Husenbeth and Abbot, the
reputed inheritors of Mimer's zeal, who agreed that Weedall had observed a miraculous
event.2 Ignoring a request from McDonnell for restraint, 1-lusenbeth denounced the 'vapid
effusions' of the 'flippant and irreverent Lingard who, he said, belonged with the incredulous
Addison, Middleton and Eustaces. 3 This view was seconded by Abbot; writing as 'Phijalethes', he asserted the ascendancy of belief, bolstered by authority, over positivistic conjecture, and mockingly implored Lingard to 'reconsider his solution, and not send Fahrenheit on a sleeveless errand to Naples'.4
The harsh tone adopted by Husenbeth and Abbot attracted support for Lingard from Robert
Tate, a missioner based at Hazlewood in Yorkshire. 5 Objecting in the November issue of the
Catholic Magazine to the 'abusive' letters of the East Anglians, Tate moved, under the pseudonym of 'RSY', that future discussion should be temperate rather than declamatory.6
Unfortunately, this advice went unheeded and, refusing to retract his original letter, Husenbeth decried Tate's offering as 'savage'. 7 Abbot also rejected as 'nugatory' the renewed call made by Tate for experimental evidence to determine the cause of the liquefaction. 8 Another
CItIIR, 1, September 1831, p. 487.
2 BAA, B76, Lingard to Kirk, 29 November 1831; UCA, LP, 623 and 624, Lingard to Tate, 7 and 14 December 1831; 368, Lingard to Rock, II January 1832.
CMR, 1, October 183 I, pp. 548-550. Quotations from pp. 548-549. ' Ibid., pp. 550-552. Quotation from p. 552.
Tate was born in 1799 and trained for the priesthood at Ushaw where he was ordained in 1823. Between 1828 and 1830. he served as Vice-President of Ushaw and later became its President. Tate died in 1876. See David Milburn, A History of,Ushaw College: A Study of the Origin, Foundation and Development of an English Catholic Seminaiy (Durham, 1964), p. 127; Fitzgerald-Lombard, p. 142.
6 CMR, I, November 1831, pp. 625-628.
Ibid., December 1831, pp. 690-692. Quotation from p. 692.
8 Ibid., pp. 689-690. Quotation from p. 690.
174 correspondent, identified only as 'Y', entered the fray in January 1832 to condemn the 'futile
zeal' of Abbot and lambaste the 'dictatorial insolence' of Husenbeth.'
By this stage, the general Catholic public had grown weary of the squabble and conveyed its
disgruntlement to the editorial committee.2 In a statement published in February, McDonnell
answered the critics by disclaiming responsibility for the published articles and denying that he
had any bias for either side. McDonnell also dismissed the idea that it was his role to dictate
the subjects discussed by any contributor, the inference being that the Januarian controversy
would continue for as long as letters were submitted on the matter. 3 This was only a smoke-
screen, however, to cover his support for Lingard: McDonnell had already threatened
Lingard's opponents with censorship and exclusion unless they showed him a little more
charity,4 and in December, he stated outright with Lingard that 'in all investigations of such
subjects, the presumption is always against the miracle'. 5 McDonnell was also keen to prolong
the debate for financial reasons: he clearly recognised, like Andrews, that controversy was
good, generating interest in the periodical and hopefully increasing sales. As one subscriber
later told McDonnell: 'There is nothing gives a number of your Magazine more interest than a well maintained controversy, especially when it becomes warm and animated'.6
One person who believed that the discussion had outlived its purpose was Lingard. In an effort to end it, he wrote an article constructed as a dialogue between Antonio and Ippolito, two
Italians of 'learning and experience'. 7 Ruminating on the debate, Antonio asked why Catholics could not discuss issues with decorum and, not waiting for his companion to reply, blamed the
'guardians of orthodoxy' who considered 'every deviation from one of their favourite, though
CMR, 1, January 1832, pp. 766-771. Quotations from pp. 766-767.
2 Ibid., II, February 1832, pp. 31-32; UCA, WP, 182, Rock to Wiscman, 19 March 1832.
CMR. II, February 1832, p. 5. ' Ibid., I, October 1831. p. 552.
Ibid., December 1831, p. 687.
6 Ibid.. IV. August 1833, p. 40.
Ibid., 11, February 1832, pp. 35-44. Quotation from p. 36. See UCA, LP, 623, Lingard to Tate, 7 December 1831.
175 ill-founded and contracted, notions' to be heretical.' Under the guise of Ippolito, Lingard
urged these individuals to eschew that 'turbulent kind of zeal which burnt so fiercely in the
heart of Dr M[ilner]' and embrace instead the 'zeal of charity'. 2 This sentiment was echoed by
Henry Weedall, writing for the Catholic Magazine soon after his return to England, who
condemned the 'puerile' behaviour of participants on both sides. 3 Nevertheless, on the subject
of miracles, the gulf separating the two men remained unbridged. Lingard still insisted that,
without scientific evidence, the liquefaction could not be classified as miraculous, while
Weedall maintained a diametrically opposed view. Stalemate thus reached, the controversy
finally ended in March, much to Lingard's delight, and he expressed relief that he would 'hear
no more about it'.4
Immediately after the hubbub over the blood of St Januarius had subsided, the editorship of the
Catholic Magazine underwent a significant change when John Gascoyne and Francis Martyn
both resigned from the editorial committee to concentrate on their pastoral duties. This
development was welcomed by Kirk who believed that the original large number of editors
had hindered the magazine's progress, and he was optimistic that it would 'now be better
conducted'.5 Since the early days àf the Catholic Magazine, uncertainty had continued over
who was responsible for correcting the press and many errata had consequently gone
undetected. With the sudden change in the administration, the three remaining editors decided
at once to solve the problem and, with the help of Ignatius Collingridge, his clerical assistant at
St Chad's, Edward Peach took on the task of removing typographical mistakes. 6 In May,
Lingard reported to Kirk that, despite this effort, the technical quality of the publication
remained unacceptable: 'You will excuse me, if I find fault...It proceeds from my wish that the
magazine should be as perfect as possible. I am not blind to its improvement and claims to
'CMR, 11, February 1832, p. 37.
2 BAA, B76, Lingard to Kirk, 29 November 1831.
CMR, II, March 1832, pp. 73-99. Quotation from p. 74.
BAA, B91, Lingard to Kirk, May 1832.
AAW, BP, A72, Kirk to Gradwell, 17 March 1832.
6 NDA, Pre A1/2, Kirk to Husenbeth, 8 August 1832; BAA, SC/C21, 1-lusenbeth, 'Memoirs of Parkers', 11, p. 16.
176 approbation, but I shall not cease to teaze you, till I see it come from the press free from errors either grammatical or typical'.' Nevertheless, Lingard could find no other significant cause for complaint and, as he commented in the same letter, the loss of Gascoyne and Martyn had not harmed the work.
Unknown to Lingard, the Catholic Magazine was now stuck in a financial quagmire. During its
first year of publication, sales of the periodical generated £413, more than offsetting the sum of330 spent on publishing twelve issues, but the profit of83 was swallowed up by printing costs incurred between February and June 1832.2 In fact, to continue the concern, the editors had been forced under 'painful necessity' to borrow extra funds. The Oscott Conference gathered on 10 July: it passed two resolutions permitting the editors to request a supplementary payment of £ I from all existing shareholders and increase the subscription to
£3 for new proprietors.3 No attempt, however, was made to remedy the root cause of the journal's financial problems, that its sales had dwindled by a quarter since the beginning of the year.4 As McDonnell himself realised, a considerable part of the Catholic community had been discouraged by the Catholic Magazine's emphasis on 'matter of a grave and instructive tendency'5 which had been intensified by the political essays that it now occasionally featured.
In his opening address of February 1831, McDonnell promised that the Catholic Magazine would avoid topics 'altogether involved in what is technically termed politics', stating that it would embrace only political issues concerned with 'questions of religion or morality'. 6 One acceptable area of debate, uniting politics with religion, was the levying of rates and tithes on the inhabitants of a parish, regardless of their denomination, to support the personnel and property of the Established Church. This was then a particularly contentious subject because
'BAA, B91, Lingard to Kirk, May 1832.
2 NDA Pre A 1/2, CMR Report, July 1832.
Ibid. See AAW. BP, A72, Kirk to Gradwell, 17 March 1832.
4 NDA, PreAl/2, CMR Report, July 1832.
CMR, II, February 1832, P.3.
6 Ibid., I, February 1831, p.9.
177 the Catholic poor in Ireland were openly resisting the tithing system with a campaign of non-
payment. Tensions between the people and the authorities there were so bad that the yeomanry
fired on protesters at Newtownbarry on 18 June, killing twelve and wounding twenty.'
Infuriated by this 'wanton slaughter', 2 McDonnell quickly flexed his political muscle as a
newly-elected council-member of the Birmingham Political Union and sent a letter of support
to the people of Newtownbarry on its behalf. This had a positive effect, as McDonnell later
recalled:
Having succeeded in this attempt, 1 had afterwards the gratification of learning, from more sources than one, and those the most authentic sources, of information, that this movement had been most opportune, and that the Irish people, always grateful for even the proffer of services, hailed our sympathy, and laid aside the thoughts of retaliatory vengeance, which they had been meditating, both at the immediate scene of the murder, and throughout the whole of the country, in which it had been perpetrated.3
Then, in August, McDonnell used the Catholic Magazine for the first time as a 'platform for
McDonnellite liberal radicalism' 4 with an editorial which demanded the wholesale abolition of
tithes throughout Great Britain and Ireland: 5 'That Reform is inevitable', he wrote on behalf of
all denominations; 'It is demanded with one voice by two-thirds of the nation; comprising the
Catholics and the various classes of Dissenters from the Church established by Act of
Parliament, as well as by a large proportion of the remaining third, comprising the nominal
adherents of the Political Religion itself.6
McDonnell steered clear of politics in the Catholic Magazine until February 1832 when he wrote an article which censured the Anglican episcopate for having impeded the parliamentary progress of the Reform Bill giving industrial towns adequate representation, and warned that this opposition to change was causing division and disaffection, less so among Catholics than
CAIR, 1, August 1831, pp. 394-396 and September 1831, pp. 479-481; lv, August 1833, pp. 12-13; V, February 1834, p. 110; Owen Chadwick, The Victorian Church 2 vols (London, 1966-1970), 1, p. 50.
2 CMR, 1, August 1831, p. 394.
McDonnell, Case, p. 32.
Champ. 'Priesthood and Politics', p. 293.
CJI1R, 1, August 1831. pp. 385-396.
Ibid., p. 385.
178 within the Protestant camp.' Soon after, McDonnell enforced his strong words with stern
actions. He attended a vestry meeting on Easter Tuesday at St Martin's church and opposed
the local levying of ecclesiastical rates on Catholics and other Nonconformists by the Church
of England.2 Then, on 7 May, in front of one hundred thousand people at the 'Great Meeting'
of the Birmingham Political Union, McDonnell confirmed himself as a 'popular radical hero'.3
In his major speech, he urged Parliament not to reject the revived attempt at implementing
political reform, warning the government that the 'people of England had now learned to play
the great game of liberty, and would no longer be cheated'. 4 Unfortunately, on that very day,
the I-louse of Lords again obstructed the legislation and brought the country to the brink of
civil war. McDonnell later claimed that his address to the Birmingham public had appeased the
crowd and prevented revolution,5 but in reality the crisis was averted by William IV who,
counselled by his Prime Minister, Earl Grey, created peers to defeat the opposition and
enabled the Bill to pass safely on 4 June.6
In the July issue of the Catholic Magazine, McDonnell celebrated this momentous event by
commending the thirty English and Irish Catholic parliamentarians who had championed the
cause of reform.7 However, as he further showed, the two camps were fundamentally divided
over the continuing controversy surrounding tithes in Ireland. The government had lately
formulated a bill which endowed every parson of the Irish Church with a portion of land
belonging to local tithe-payers.8 This measure, rejected unequivocally by the Irish Catholic
MPs, was supported by the English Catholic members who acted in strict accordance with their
CMR, II. February 1832, pp. 16-31, especially p. 19. See Chadwick, Victorian Church, I, pp. 25 if; G.I.T. Machin, Politics and the Churches in Great Britain 1832 to 1868 (Oxford, 1977), p. 24.
2 Protestant Journal, II, May 1832, pp. 273-275; CMR, II, May 1832, p. 308; IV, August 1833, p. 11; McDonnell, Case, p. 30; Champ, 'Priesthood and Politics', pp. 292-293.
Ibid., p. 295.
"Cited ibid.
McDonnell. op. cii., pp. 32-33; CMR, IV, August 1833, p. 15.
6 Chadwick, op. cit., pp. 31-32.
CMR, II, July 1832, pp. 381-392. Only two Catholic politicians, Sir Clifford Constable and Lord Arundel, had opposed the Reform Bill and they were accotdingly chastised by McDonnell (ibid., p. 387).
Ibid., May 1832, p. 243.
179 sworn oath not to subvert the Protestant religion of the realm nor to undermine the settlement
of ecclesiastical property as established by law.' Disgusted that his countrymen had supported
a 'tyrannical enactment' which plundered and oppressed millions of his fellow Catholics,
McDonnell responded angrily, making a particular example of the Honourable Edward Petre,
the English Catholic MP for llchester, and promising to expose other high-ranking English
Catholics in the next issue of the Catholic Magazine.2 The threatened article, however, never
appeared because the editorial committee heeded Lingard's warning that vital subscriptions
would be lost if they continued to use the Catholic Magazine against men of influence.3 Ever
mindful of his independence, McDonnell was indignant at being told what to do and spoke out
'against the injustice of the fiat, to which we bow'.4
McDonnell's protest, however, was ignored by the other editors of the Catholic Magazine.
Between August and October, they suppressed all contentious material and gave preference to
benign papers from the likes of Wiseman and Kirk. This abrupt redirection of policy was
partly a frightened reaction to Rome's recent fatal condemnation of L 'Avenir, the French
Catholic newspaper founded in October 1830 by Lamennais with help from his followers, the
Abbé Lacordaire and the Comte de Montalembert. After the late revolution in France, which
saw the House of Orleans replace that of Bourbon, the editors of L 'Avenir tried to address the crisis with a programme that united Uliramontanisni with democracy. They condemned
Gallicanism, with its subjugation of the spiritual to the temporal authority, asserted that the
Pope was the sole infallible source of unity who deserved absolute submission, argued that the
Catholic Church could only thrive if it severed its ties with the State and ruling dynasties, and urged the government to give the people, liberty of conscience, liberty of the press and liberty of education. These doctrines were not supported by the French clerical hierarchy which identified the Church's cause with that of the dethroned royal family and remained largely
Gallican in its outlook. In the face of this resistance, Lamennais and his colleagues suspended
'Chadwick, Victorian church, i, pp. 20-21.
2 CA'IR, 11, July 1832. P. 389.
BAA, B104, Lingard to Kirk, July 1832.
' CMR. 11, August 1832, pp. 454-455.
180 L 'Avenir in November 1831 and went to Rome to receive the Pope's sanction, which they
believed their loyalty to the Church deserved. Gregory XVI, however, refused to give an
immediate response, recognising the danger of being seen to approve of political radicalism.
When he did eventually reply, on 15 August 1 832, it was through Mirari Vos, an encyclical
which condemned the liberalism of L 'Avenfr and sealed the newspaper's fate)
The Catholic Magazine's retreat from controversy was due also to the fact that, during this
period, McDonnell temporarily delegated control to his less contentious associates, while he
concentrated on leading the Birminghari-based campaign against ecclesiastical rates.2 Since
Easter, the vestry of St Martin's church had failed to establish an acceptable level of tax. An
attempt to agree a figure was made in September, but ended unsuccessfully when McDonnell
disrupted the meeting: according to Josiah Aliport, he entered St Martin's after the debate had
started and 'when it seemed likely to take an amicable turn'.3 A scene was made by
McDonnell's supporters who received him 'with the most boisterous cheering, and other demonstrations of applause',4 and when order was restored he strategically moved the talks away from church rates to another topic. McDonnell's actions were considered disgraceful by
Allport who gave him special and lengthy critical attention in the Protestant Journal. Allport did not accept that a member of the cloth, regardless of denomination, should dabble in politics, and he juxtaposed McDonnell with Edward Peach, a non-political priest whose
'course has been of that meek and Christian kind, as to ensure the veneration of every class of society in the great town in which he resides, as well as the heartfelt affection of the members of his own community':5
Let the Infidel, the Unitarian, the riotous assemble, Mr McDonnell is never absent. Be it a mob in the open air, venting vollies of sedition and alarming the peaceful members of the community, they want not the sanction and voice of Rome at their proceedings. Be it a meeting of rate payers to grant a
'This account of L 'Avenir is based on Ward. William George Ward and the Catholic Revival, pp. 103- 107; Dom Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council: The Story Told From Inside In Bishop Ullathorne 's Letters 2 vols (London, 1936), 1, p. 60; Roe, Lamennais and England, pp. 9-12.
2 Protestant Journal, II, November 1832, p. 700.
Ibid.. September 1832. p. 568.
' ibid., p. 569.
Ibid.. pp. 569-570.
181 rate, he enters the Protestant Church, not calmly to exercise a legal right, but at the head of a rabble of the lowest kind, to overbear the rate-payers, and thwart every calm consideration of the purpose for which they are assembled. No respect for these sacred walls (walls sacred to him, being consecrated by his own church); prevents him from declaiming with the most profane buffoonery, insulting the legal officers, and taunting the chairman in the mild discharge of his bounden, but most disagreeable duty. Here this Priest is heard, with unblushing effrontery, exclaiming against the injustice of establishments, and urging his followers to submit to anything rather than the payment of church-rates, and, in fact, to refuse every impost which is not consistent with their own views of equity and property...As a member of the Political Union, and of its council, this Minister of peace has been conspicuous in its most objectionable assemblages, the advocate of its most exceptionable proceedings; and when every other member, even the most virulent, had laid aside the medal - the badge of faction, he was to be met bearing it in the public streets. In fact, wherever party spirit is to be excited, wherever the worst of passions are to be raised, there is he promoting [the] cause - the bellows of foul breath to rouse the slumbering embers.'
This astonishing attack did not deter McDonnell who dismissed it with blithe contempt: on 6
October, he attended another vestry meeting at St Martin's church when proceedings were adjourned indefinitely, causing the Times to state that the Church of England was now in
'serious peril'.2
Having achieved a significant political victory, and received local and national recognition,
McDonnell returned in November as executive editor of the Catholic Magazine. His first important decision on resuming his literary duties was whether to publish a petition, organised by Andrews, that demanded the repeal of the 'soul-ensnaring' oath imposed, in accordance with the conditions of the Emancipation Act, on Catholics elected to Parliament. Convinced that this was worthy of consideration, McDonnell featured it in the November issue. 3 But the renewal of the Catholic Magazine as a cQntroversial organ enraged Hugh Charles Clifford. He sent his father-in-law in Rome, Cardinal Thomas Weld, previously the intermediary between the Holy See and the editors of L 'Avenir,4 a list of grievances against McDonnell. Clifford, who had played a crucial role in ending the first series of the Orthodox Journal,5 set out to do the same to the Catholic Magazine by alerting Weld to McDonnell's conspicuous activity on
'Protestant Journal, II. September 1832, p. 570.
2 Times, 9 October 1832.
CMR, II, November 1832, pp. 730-735.
Roe, Lamennais and England, p. 71.
See above, pp. 120-121.
182 behalf of the Birmingham Political Union. He also told Weld, albeit wrongly, that Propaganda had already reprimanded Thomas Walsh, the Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District,' for allowing McDonnell to associate himself with a radical organisation like the Birmingham
Political Union,2 and accused McDonnell of having contravened the orthodox principles laid down by Milner in Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected. There is uncertainty as to which article or articles in the Catholic Magazine Clifford was referring to, but it seems likely that he had in mind McDonnell's recent attack on Mirari Vos.3 McDonnell might not have agreed with the
Ultramontane views of Lamennais, Lacordaire and Montalembert, particularly their emphasis on papal supremacy and infallibility: as far as he was concerned, the Pope was merely a
'foreign prelate'.4 However, McDonnell was at one with the editors of L 'Avenir in their promotion of anti-Erastian democracy, and made this quite clear in his commentaries on
Gregory XVI and Mirari Vos.
Clifford's attempt to undermine McDonnell failed on this occasion because Walsh resolutely supported his priest, even encouraging him to write a 'sharp letter' to the meddlesome gentleman.5 Walsh's unshaken confidence in McDonnell gave him a licence to continue promoting the liberal cause during the months that followed. In the spring of 1833, McDonnell actively helped to ensure that the ecclesiastical rate was not re-levied by the wardens of St
Martin's church and led a petition from Birmingham to Parliament against the Irish Coercion
Bill.6 Admittedly, McDonnell did resign about this time from the Birmingham Political Union, but this was not contrived by Clifford, Weld, Walsh or even Ailport. Rather, it was the
Walsh was born in 1776. After his ordination in 1801, he worked at Sedgley Park School and then Oscott College, of which he was made President in 1818. Walsh was appointed coadjutor of the Midland District and consecrated Bishop of Cambysopolis in parlibus in 1825, and succeeded Mimer as Vicar Apostolic the following year. He was transferred to the London District in 1848 and it is said that he was chosen to be the first Archbishop of Westminster on the restoration of the hierarchy, but he died in 1849. See Fitzgerald-Lombard, p. 150 and p. 153; Frederick Charles Husenbeth, Rt. Revd. Dr. Walsh', Midland Catholic History, 1996, pp. 31-38.
2 BAA. B 121, Thomas Walsh to Clifford, January 1833.
CMR. 11, November 1832, pp. 735-738, p. 753 and pp. 797-799.
Catholicon, May 1837, p. 514.
NDA, Pre A1/2, Kirk to Husenbeth, 14 December 1832.
6 CMR, Ill. May 1833. pp. 404-405 and p. 409; McDonnell. ('ase. p. 33; Chadwick, Victorian C'hurch, 1, p. 56; Machin, Politics and the Churches, p. 35; Champ, Priesthood and Politics', p. 295.
183 consequence of an internal wrangle concerning an invoice for expenses which McDonnell had
submitted in November 1832. Personal costs totalling £12, he claimed, had been incurred as a
result of his unauthorised preparations for Daniel O'Connell's recent visit to Birmingham. A
majority of council members voted to repay this sum as a 'matter of favour', 1 but subsequent
resentment towards McDonnell made his membership of the Union untenable.2
More secure than his position in the Birmingham Political Union was McDonnell's
stewardship of the Catholic Magazine. Retaining the support of his brethren editors, who
dismissed Clifford's critique as insubstantial, McDonnell was allowed to continue steering the
periodical into controversy, disregarding that 'class of censors... who buzz about in
consequential vacuity of occupation or intellect'. 3 This was evident in the issue for January
1833 which not only featured another inflammatory article by Andrews on the Catholic oath,4
but also included a contentious paper by Lingard on the frailties of an epitome of Roman
devotion, the Litany of Loreto. 5 Prompted by John Fletcher's decision to revise The Catholic's
Prayer Book, Lingard used the periodical to 'feel the public mind' 6 on the possible exclusion
of the Litany, which had originally been approved for use in 1587 by Pope Sixtus V. from the
updated text. Lingard came up with the curious device of writing under the guise of
'Proselytos', a Catholic recently converted from Protestantism. As he explained to Robert
Tate:
Aware I should haye opponents, I sought to mollifi the indignation by the long account of P's unavailing efforts to carve his religion out of the Scriptures. It was my intention then to promenade P. through a variety of
'Birmingham Journal, 17 November 1832.
2 CMR, III, April 1833, P. 331; Flick, Birmingham Political Union, p. 102; Cl'amp, 'Priesthood and Politics', p. 295.
CMR, Ill. January 1833, pp. 1-11. Quotation from p. 3.
Ibid., pp. 25-30. From this paper, a debate on the oath started that lasted nearly a year. The arguments presented by Andrews were opposed by three priests: John Woods of I-Iinckley, Thomas Green of Tixall and, writing as 'Londinensis', George Oliver of Exeter. For the various exchanges, see ibid. February 1833, pp. 140-141 [Oliver] and pp. 141-144 [Andrews]; March 1833. pp. 198-199 [Woods]; April 1833, Pp. 289-292 [Andrews]; May 1833, pp. 368-374 [Greenl; June 1833, pp. 465-468 [Oliver]; July 1833, pp. 522-533 [Andrews]; LV, August 1833, Pp. 45-46 [Woods]; September 1833, PP. 100-109 [Green], pp. 109-Ill [Andrews] and pp. 169-170 [Woods]. The controversy was ended by McDonnell when the increasingly technical arguments became too tedious for general readers.
5 /bid, January 1833, pp. 17-22.
6 UCA, LP, 625, Lingard to Tate. April/May 1833.
184 Catholic Chapels, praising this thing and condemning that, for the purpose of affording me occasion to point out such improvements as I thought might be made in our public service &c. and at the same time such defects as I think exist in the manner of reading, preaching, and discharging the different duties of the ministry.'
Recounting one visit to a Catholic chapel, 'Proselytos' noted that he had been disappointed by
the 'harsh and unmusical' voice of the priest and had been discouraged by the 'succession of
short invocations to the virgin, uttered with the most unsurprising rapidity, to which the
congregation responded "pray for us", with equal rapidity'. 'It seemed a race between priest
and people', he continued: 'I had heard of Protestant dancers, jumpers, and ranters; I now
thought myself amidst a set of Catholic gallopers'. But what troubled 'Proselytos' most about
the Litany of Loreto were the 'incomprehensible' epithets applied to the Virgin Mary who was
enigmatically described as 'the morning star, the gate of heaven, the ark of the covenant, the
house of God, the tower of David and the tower of ivory'. While this language might have
suited the period in which the Litany of Loreto was composed, 'Proselytos' argued, it now
offended the 'more correct taste of the present age'. Therefore, •he concluded, these
anachronistic invocations 'ought to be excluded from the public service'.2
This plea for liturgical reform roused vigorous opposition from two theologically conservative
subscribers to the Catholic Magazine. The first, writing as 'Lauretanus', was Joseph Curr,
chaplain to the Clavering family at Callaly Castle in Northumberland,3 and the second, signing
his letter 'Pastor', was Husenbeth.4 Both men found the proposal to abolish the Litany of
Loreto reprehensible and unequivocally rejected any effort to 'reform and censure what past
UCA, LP, 625, Lingard to Tate, April/May 1833. 2 CMR, III, January 1833, pp. 19-20. See Lingard to Mary Frances Sanders, 16 March 1835, in (ed.) John Trappes-Lomax. The Letters of Dr. John Lingard to Mrs. Thomas Lomax (/835-51) (Catholic Record Society, 2000), p. 32: 'I am amused that you consult me respecting the litany of Loretto; me, who have scandalized half the old Catholic women, of both genders, in England by my opposition to that Litany. Yet I did it in the most moderate manner. I observed that it suited the age in which it was composed: it was then the taste to employ far fetched metaphors and images, and the compiler of the litany looked through the bible and selected every expression which he could in any possible sense apply to the B.V. Now it will not do, and I flatter myself that I have been instrumental in banishing it from the public service in our chapels, at least generally. In private I blame no one that uses it, nor can I see why any one should blame those who use it not'.
CMR, III, March 1833, pp. 202-208. Curr was born in 1793, educated at Ushaw and ordained in 1817. He worked throughout the Northern District and died in 1847. See Gil/ow, 1, pp. 608-612; Fitzgerald- Lombard, p. 146.
" CMR, III, March 1833, pp. 209-213. For the attribution of the letters, see BAA, B133, Husenbeth to Kirk, 3 February 1833 UCA, Walker Papers, Husenbeth to John Walker, 6 December 1864.
185 ages have approved and cherished'.' This defiant attitude towards the 'frivolity and
degeneracy of the present generation' earned Curr and Husenbeth the support of Andrews.2
Lingard, however, responding as 'Proselytos', berated these 'monopolizers of orthodoxy'.3
Repeating that it would be better to end the public use of the Litany, a non-essential form of
devotion, he claimed that it confirmed the prejudices of English Protestants and made them
suspicious of Catholicism. Lingard then announced his retirement from the discussion,
explaining privately to Tate that it were more prudent to 'withdraw than to thrust my head into
a hornet's nest'. In the same letter, Lingard also revealed a new dispirited attitude towards the
Catholic Magazine: 'We must keep pace with the age. To judge from the magazine we do not.
I wish myself it were discontinued, for I think it on the whole a disgrace to the clergy'.4
Lingard's sudden resignation from the debate was regretted by his friend, John Walker, a young professor at Ushaw College, 5 who wrote to the Catholic Magazine as 'Augustinus'.
Walker complained that 'Proselytos' had been treated disgracefully by Curr and Husenbeth.
He also blamed McDonnell for having admitted such 'disreputable' correspondents to the periodical and warned him that its death would be assured if they were granted further access.6
The members of the Oscott Conference, meeting on 8 May, also urged the editors to purge the
Catholic Magazine of controversy.7 However, McDonnell resisted the call with the consequence that a majority of Oscott priests voted in June to dissolve the committee which had been appointed to oversee the Catholic Magazine. At the same time, Edward Peach
CMR. III, March 1833, P. 213.
2 Andrews' Penny Orthodox Journal of En1rtaining Christian Knowledge, 1, 9 March 1833, pp. 212- 213. Quotation from p. 212.
CMR. III, April 1833, pp. 302-309. Quotation from p. 303.
UCA, LP, 625, Lingard to Tate, April/May 1833. See ibid., 630, Lingard to Tate, November 1834: 'With respect to.. .the Mag:. .. I wish it was extinct. It does us no honour'.
Walker was born in 1801. Educated at Ushaw, he was ordained in 1826 and taught there from 1831 to 1835 when he left to serve the mission at Scarborough. Walker died in 1873. See ibid., Index to Ushaw College Diary, 1808-1863; Fitzgerald-Lombard, p. 142.
CMR, III, May 1833, pp. 384-389. Quotation from P. 386. For the identification of Walker as 'Augustinus', see UCA, Walker Papers, Husenbeth to Walker, 6 December 1864.
CMR, Ill, June 1833, pp. 485-486.
.186 notified the Conference by letter of his retirement from the editorship, again in apparent
protest at the periodical's disputatious nature.1
During the weeks that followed, McDonnell himself made several attempts to resign his office,
but was persuaded to remain in charge by members of the proprietorship. 2 Emboldened by this
repeated vote of confidence, he published in the August number of the Catholic Magazine a
personal vindication, stating that his prime concern in publishing controversy was to broker
peace, not cause friction, between opposing parties. 3 As a gesture of defiance to his critics,
McDonnell then reopened the debate over the Litany of Loreto by featuring a paper from
Husenbeth's pen which dismissed Walker's 'arrogant interference'. 4 This was accompanied by another letter, written by '1-lieronymus', which called Lingard a coward, declaring that he had
'no bottom', and dared him to re-enter the fray. 5 Unable to ignore this challenge, Lingard retorted in September that he had not retired because of cowardice, but because he had been reluctant to 'reason with men, who substitute abuse for argument, and who, arrogating to themselves the privilege of the Almighty, the searcher of the veins and heart, attribute to their opponent objects and motives, as odious to him as they can be to themselves'.6
In the next issue of the Catholic Magazine, there was a final reply to Husenbeth and
'Hieronymus' from Walker which effectively concluded the argument between the main protagonists.7 The ending of the controversy, however, did not satisfy Wiseman, and in
December, he announced to his friend, William Tandy, a tutor of theology at Oscott College, that he had decided to sever his links with the periodical:
CMR, IV. September 1833. p. xxvii.
2 Ibid., August 1833, p. 2; September 1833. p. xxvii.
Ibid., August 1833, pp. 1-17. ' Ibid.. pp. 36-40. Quotation from p. 37.
Ibid., pp. 40-45. Quotation from p. 40. Walker suspected that John Abbot was 'Hieronymus', but this was rejected by Husenbeth (UCA, Walker Papers, Husenbeth to Walker, 6 December 1864).
6 CMR, IV, September 1833, pp. 111-113. Quotation from p. 112.
7 lbid., October 1833, pp. 15 1-155. A strong defence of the Litany of Loreto by a Spanish refugee priest, Mariano Gil de Tejada, did appear later, but this failed to ignite further discussion on the matter (ibid., November 1833, pp. 229-234: BAA. B542, Mariano Gil de Tejada to Lingard, n.d.).
187 I have at length seen the Magazine, and after mature deliberation have come to the resolution of abandoning all communication with it. Do not you say any thing upon this head until you hear it from others as I shall soon write to Mr Kirk upon it and respectfully give my reasons. The chief is that the principles on which it is conducted - that of allowing in its pages free discussion short of absolute heterodoxy, making no account of the scandal or imprudence of these discussions - would never be approved at Rome, where propositions are often condemned not because heretical, but as subversive of piety, offensive to pious ears &c. Now I am part of Rome, as a professor in its university, and still more as consulter of the Index, and can allow myself to judge by no principles which could not be approved here. I could not be attacked more seriously in character, than by having particular expressions in the Mag. shown up as extracted from the journal which I co-operate in, and consequently as containing my principles. What could give greater offence at Rome or in any catholic country than to denounce the Litany of the B. Virgin as unfit for public use, and as mere unintelligible nonsense. God knows devotion towards her is sufficiently cold in England without the clergy throwing water upon it.'
This was an extremely important development, marking the clear shift that was taking place in
English Catholic opinion from the cool rationalism of the eighteenth-century enlightenment
towards the romanticism of the Second Spring. As Wiseman remarked, confirming Lingard's
opinion of himself: 'A propos of the controversy on the Loreto Litany some man said that its
beautiful mystic terms were not "suited to the taste of the present age". Who so wrote thus
knew but little of the taste of the age'.2
Wiseman, the future leader of the English Catholic Revival, realised that his decision would have serious implications for the Catholic Magazine and delayed informing the editors for two months until he was quite satisfied that it had not shed its 'sadly reforming spirit'. 3 It would appear that Wiseman confirmed his resignation after reading two more contentious articles by
Lingard in the February 1834 issue of the Catholic Magazine. The first paper, signed
'Sacerdos', called on the Vicars Apostolic to rearrange the contents of Richard Challoner's
The Garden of/he Soul and adapt the language of the prayers in it to make them intelligible to
11 UCA WP. 787, Wiseman to William Tandy, 2 December 1833.
2 Ibid... 78& Wiseman to Tandy. 17 January 1834.
Ibid... 790. Wiseman to Tandy, 15 March 1834. See ibid. 792, Wiseman to Tandy, 14 April 1834; CMR., V. April 1834..p. %Jiv.
188 the ordinary reader.' The second essay, signed 'Catechistes', proposed a thorough revision of
the catechism to make it short and simple.2
While Wiseman's withdrawal from the Catholic Magazine was regretted by Kirk and
McDonnell, it was not entirely unexpected. 3 For some months before Wiseman ended his
association with the periodical, it had become evident that many more subscribers,
uninterested in public religious controversy, were renouncing it. Indeed, sales during the first
quarter of 1833 declined to the extent that the only dividends released to the proprietors in
June were unsold copies of the work. 4 Hoping to improve this, McDonnell identified the Irish
clergy as a possible source of revenue. Accordingly, he travelled to Ireland on 3 September
and secured fifty new subscriptions during a month-long stay there. 5 This unfortunately had
limited impact and, as McDonnell confessed in January 1834, the finances of the Catholic
Magazine remained insecure. 6 The details of this admission were disclosed in April with the
presentation to the proprietorship of the yearly accounts. They revealed two things: that the
work was unprofitable, and that of the seven hundred and fifty copies of the journal printed
every month, on average a meagre five hundred were distributed throughout the United
Kingdom and Ireland,7 and this at a time when issues of the most successful secular periodicals
were selling tens of thousands of copies.8
Nevertheless, on the day that the annual figures were published, McDonnell successfully raised
extra capital by altering the constitution of the Catholic Magazine so that proprietors could
now own a maximum of twenty shares at an increased rate of5 per share. But this temporary
CMR, V, February 1834, pp. 85-8 7.
2 Ibid., pp. 89-90. For the identification of Lingard as the author of both pieces, see Haile and Bonney, L?fe and Letters ofJohn Lingard, pp. 387-388; Chinnici, English Catholic Enlightenment, p. 214.
UCA, WP, 203, Kirk to Wiseman, 9 April 1834; CMR, V, April 1834, p. xliv.
4 /bid, III, June 1833, p.485; IV, September 1833. p. xxvii.
Ibid. October 1833, p. xliv and November 1833, pp. 247-253; V, May 1834, p. lxxix and June 1834, pp. 404-409; BAA, SC/C21, Husenbeth, 'Memoirs of Parkers', II, p. 333.
6 CMR, V. Januaiy 1834, pp. 1-2.
7 ibid.. May 1834. p. lxxix.
8 Richard D. Altick, The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public 1800- /900 (Chicago, 1957), p. 393.
189 fix was, regrettably, not sustained by a long-term strategy to entice back those readers who had abandoned the work. Wiseman affirmed that he would recommence his contributions on condition that the character of the Catholic Magazine was fundamentally changed:
Let me only find that it is conducted on higher and more definite principles, that it is decidedly catholic, and that its pages are to be open no longer to vulgar, abusive, wrangling scribblers, in other words that more attention is paid to the first and last, and less to the middle phrase of its motto, that it belongs to no party political or clerical, but is essentially the organ of catholic doctrine and catholic feeling in its noblest form, and I will enlist my slender abilities with pleasure.. .and take the humblest place allotted to me as a contributor.'
However, there was little chance that the Catholic Magazine would ever be so altered with
McDonnell exercising ultimate editorial power. In fact, for the next few issues, the periodical remained as contentious as ever, as a battleground on which liberals and conservatives fought to control how Catholicism was taught and practised in England.2
The only person with enough power to force McDonnell to change his ways and alter the
Catholic Magazine was Thomas Walsh. But unlike his predecessor, Bishop Milner, Walsh was both weak and indecisive in his management of the clergy of the Midland District. While
McDonnell was visiting Ireland in the autumn of 1833, Walsh was persuaded by representatives of the local Catholic business community, evidently embarrassed by the continuing presence of a controversial priest in Birmingham, to remove McDonnell from the town. -lowever, when this plan was made public in December, McDonnell's supporters rallied to his side and criticised Walsh's propoal in a petition containing fifteen hundred signatures.
Local Protestants also presented a memorial in McDonnell's defence, testifying that he had constantly advocated the cause of the oppressed, and enlightened non-Catholics on the principles of Catholicism. This display of support forced Walsh to back down and, on 19
January 1834, he confessed to McDonnell and the congregation of St Peter's that he had been
'UCA, WP, 792. Wiseman to Tandy, 14 April 1834.
2 The debate on the Litany of Loreto was quickly replaced by concurrent discussions on the catechism and devotional forms. See above, pp. 188-189; CMR, V. March 1834, pp. 155-159; April 1834, pp. 220- 223 and pp. 232-234; May 1834, pp. 282-285 and pp. 325-330; June 1834, pp. 400-401; July 1834, pp. 440-449 and pp. 457-461; August 1834, pp..505-513 and pp. 517-526; September 1834, pp. 591-595; November 1834, pp. 7 15-719; UCA. LP, 627, Lingard to Tate. 22 June 1835; Chinnici, English Catholic Enlightenment. pp. 142-144.
190 misled by misrepresentations, and rashly declared that McDonnell would not be removed from his post.'
On the same day, Walsh also announced plans to build a cathedral in Birmingham which, he anticipated, would give local Catholics the respectability that their prominence in the town deserved.2 The idea of a central church in place of the two existing chapels had originally been suggested to Walsh the previous November by leading laymen; they were probably the same people who wanted McDonnell removed, 3 and hoped that the building of one major church to accommodate the congregations of St Peter's and St Chad's would 'promote the interests of
Religion, and have a powerful tendency to reunite all in those bonds of charity, which existing circumstances have unfortunately rent asunder'. 4 This project was at first enthusiastically backed by McDonnell, but he withdrew his support in July when Walsh ignored the claims of
St Peter's and decided that the new structure ought to be built on the site of St Chad's because of financial and other practical considerations.5
Convinced that Walsh had been influenced by the clique which had plotted against him,
McDonnell turned against the idea of 'pulling down a chapel in a dirty part of the town, and building a larger edifice in its place', and pleaded through the Catholic Magazine for a 'strong hand' to repress the 'faction, turbulence and intrigue' that were dividing the Catholics of
Birmingham.6 McDonnell's sidelong swipe against Walsh and his authority was answered in the Birmingham Advertizer by 'Veritas', a Protestant, who wrote that 'faction and turbulence will not cease until the strong hand of the Romish Bishop of the Midland District, or his
Holiness of Rome, removes from Birmingham a certain individual.., and which it is greatly to
CMR, V. January 1834, p. xiv; McDonnell, Case, pp. 61-62; BAA, SC/C21, Husenbeth, 'Memoirs of Parkers', II, pp. 334-335; Champ, 'Priesthood and Politics', p. 296. 2 CMR, V, February 1834. pp. xvii-xxii.
According to McDonnell, the group which originally promoted the idea of a cathedral suddenly took fright at the prospect that he would be stationed there and therefore plotted against him (McDonnell, op. cit., p. 180).
BAA, B 157, Memorandum to Walsh, November 1833.
Ibid., B182, Walsh to Michael Maker, 26 July 1834.
6 CMR, V, August 1834, p. cxxxiv. See Bernard Ward, The Sequel to Catholic Emancipation 2 vols (London, 1915), 1, pp. 110-111; Champ, 'Assimilation and Separation', p. 297.
191 be desired will soon take place'.' The Catholic Magazine also received a backlash from some
unnamed Catholics, as Walsh politely told Kirk:
I consider it a duty of charity, My dear sir, to inform you that since the appearance of the last number of the Magazine more particularly, I have had several heavy complaints made against it by influential & most respectable priests & some of the respectable Catholic gentry. It is represented that such discussions as those on the Litany of Loretto, on the prayer books, on the Catholic oath, on the catechism, are rather subjects for private conferences than for a magazine, whilst the angry feelings so often expressed are the more disedifying as coming from Catholic priests. It is, I believe, generally considered that the Catholic Magazine, as at present conducted, is calculated to do much harm to Catholics, as well as to Protestants & that I, as Bp. of the District in which it is composed & printed, should express my disapprobation of it. I have reason to think that, unless it be conducted in a very different manner, whatever may be the circulation in Ireland, the sale of it will decrease in England.2
While by no means a stern admonition, this letter certainly affected Kirk and McDonnell who announced their intention to resign the editorship after the appearance of the October issue. In the interim, however, the two men received 'urgent solicitations' 3 from friends in all four districts, urging them to continue editing the Catholic Magazine. They responded by withdrawing their joint resignation and, in deference to Walsh, vowed to reject any paper submitted to them that was 'unsound, tainted, or doubtful'. 4 The final three numbers published in 1834 certainly reflected this pledge, as inflammatory articles were replaced by an illustrated series of essays on recently-constructed churches.5
In January 1835, however, McDonnell embraced controversy again with an article in which he lashed the Catholic Magazine's detractors.6 Their criticisms, he stated, were based not on factual evidence, but rather on personal prejudices. McDonnell quoted lines 558 and 559 of
'An Essay on Criticism' by Alexander Pope to show what he meant:
All seems infected, that the infected spy,
Birmingham Advertizer, 14 August 1834.
2 BAA, B 185, Walsh to Kirk, 23 August 1834.
CMR, V. October 1834, p.611.
Ibid., p.610.
Ibid., pp. clxvii-clxix; November 1834, pp. 673-675; December 1834, pp. 737-739.
6 /bid., VI, January 1835. pp. 1-10.
192 As all looks yellow to the jaundic'd eye.'
McDonnell was especially piqued because a number of laymen had, with 'arrogant and unwarrantable intrusion', 2 suggested that managerial responsibility for the Catholic Magazine should be transferred to a secular body. Although he was a liberal who believed his remit as a priest was to engage actively in secular politics, McDonnell was unwilling to tolerate lay interference in matters of theology, and in a reply that dismissed with a single stroke the work of all Catholic journalists except l-lumphrey Peyto and William Hyacinth Houghton, he argued that the religious press could only be entrusted to members of the priesthood who would
'secure the conveyance of orthodox sentiments'.3 The irony of this statement was not apparent to McDonnell whose magazine had, more than any other Catholic periodical, tested, challenged and defied traditional beliefs, practices and authority. Continuing his reply,
McDonnell claimed that lay control of the Catholic Magazine would serve only to compromise the principles on which it had been founded and, he said, only priests were qualified to comment authoritatively on religious topics:
A Catholic periodical must become, more or less, familiar with theological subjects, upon which, although the Catholic laity are a thousand-fold more enlightened than those who charge them with ignorance, and quite sufficiently so for their respective stations in society, it yet cannot be expected that they should possess that nice, discriminating, and we may call it technical accuracy, which is required in the discussion of theological matters... Many subjects, indeed, of interest to both clergy and laity, could hardly be committed to the latter, who mightjustly be accused of irregular interference, but upon which the clergy have a right to express their opinions and wishes; which right, however, they can hardly exercise except by such means of mutual communication, as the Magazine affords them.4
As an example, McDonnell referred to the question of ecclesiastical government in England, a
'proper subject of discussion in our pages', which he maintained was of greater concern to the clergy than the laity. In doing so, he intimated that a radical overhaul of the system was required to enable the priesthood to assume an active role in the appointment of bishops: 'The station of our prelates, the position of the clergy, and the general character of our little church would, we think, be ameliorated by the contemplated change, and therefore, it may become the
'('MR. VI, January 1835, p. 1.
2 Ibid.. p. 7.
Ibid.. p. 6.
' ibid., p. 3.
193 object of our most fervent aspirations, without justly subjecting us to any accusation
unbecoming the sacred ministry'.'
McDonnell's remarks revived a campaign to reform the political structure of English
Catholicism. Since 1753, the English Catholic community had been governed in accordance with Benedict XIV's Apostolicum Ministerium which had stated that the Vicars Apostolic were directly dependent on Rome for their authority, while neglecting to give English priests any canonical rights and privileges. 2 In September 1833, John Jones, a missioner attached to the London District,3 decided that a change was needed. He resented Bishop Bramston's exclusion of the clergy from the process of selecting Thomas Griffiths, the President of St
Edmund's College,4 as coadjutor in place of Robert Gradwell who had died in March.
Convinced that the prerogative of private nomination would become irrefragable unless there were 'strenuous & prompt exertions', Jones turned to Lingard in October and tried to solicit his help in the struggle to defend 'our neglected & abased Church'. 5 Lingard replied that he disapproved of the 'present ecclesiastical polity' as much as Jones and suggested that the
'irresponsible & unlimited authority' of bishops could be checked through the 'erection of a chapter, say of twelve members in each vicariate: which chapter should exercise jurisdiction vacante episcopatu, & have the right of presenting three names to the choice of the people,
whenever a bishop or coadjutor is to be appointed'. 6 But Lingard refused to wield his pen in
support of this controversial change, concerned in part that it would prompt a revival of Sir
CMR, VI, January 1835, p. 5. During penal times, when a representative procedure of election had been impractical, each Vicar Apostolic had privately chosen his own successor. However, even when emancipation meant that a more methodical system was possible, the bishops jealously retained their control over nominations and continued to do so until the restoration of the hierarchy in 1850 (Ward, Sequel to Catholic Emancipation, 1, p. 54).
2 Chinnici, English Catholic Enlightenment, p. 47.
Born in 1780, Jones was educated at St Edmund's and ordained in 1803. He worked in London before settling at St Leonard's-on-Sea, near Hastings in 1847. Jones died in 1850. See Gillow, III, pp. 667-668; Fitzgerald-Lombard, p. 148.
Griftiths was born in 1791, educated at St Edmund's and ordained in 1814. He was appointed President of St Edmund's in 1818, in succession to John Bew, and held this position until 1833. Griffiths, Bishop of Oleno in parlibus, became Vicar Apostolic of the London District in 1836 and died in 1847. See Gillow, III, pp. 61-63. UCA, LP, 788, John Jones to Lingard, 29 September 1833.
6 Ibid., 789. Lingard to Jones, 9 October 1833.
194 John Throckmorton's claim for the laity to have a say in the choice of bishops,' and he urged
Jones to be cautious: 'We must look before we leap. It would be folly to make any attempt
without a prospect of success. Failure would serve only to rivet our chains'.2
Undeterred by this rebuff, Jones approached McDonnell. He responded with greater alacrity
than Lingard and published a paper signed 'Catholic' in the November 1833 issue of the
Catholic Magazine. Whether written or merely inspired by Jones, this presented a case for the
restoration of the ancient hierarchy in England3 and was endorsed the next month in an
editorial aside by McDonnell:
Unfortunately, this island once lost its hierarchy, and, notwithstanding the universal aspirations of the second order of the clergy, it is to be feared, that measures are not yet contemplated for its restoration. It may be well, indeed, to intimate to those, whom it may seem to concern more immediately, that the clergy are becoming restless upon this subject; that their wishes, which lately were but whispered, are now spoken; that a movement, strong but orderly, is daily making progress; and, that nothing can repress it, but the just concession of that ecclesiastical government, which only is recognised by the spirit and genius of the Christian religion... If Bishops were once more established in the three kingdoms, forming an united hierarchy, n uniformity might be established throughout, as to discipline and to practices of devotion and instruction, the want of which is severely felt throughout this part of the empire.4
More support for Jones came in the same issue in a negative comment on Griffiths' consecration which had taken place at St Edmund's College on 28 October; the correspondent not only refused to commend the newly-installed coadjutor, but also questioned whether
Bramston had been wise to raise him to the episcopate. 5 These comments astounded the
Protestant manager of the British Magazine who saw that McDonnell was promoting 'radical feeling'.6 They also shocked Thomas Walsh who believed that McDonnell's passage in
'UCA, LP, 792, Lingard to Jones, 21 November 1833. See above, p. 58.
2 UCA, LP, 789, Lingard to Jones, 9 October 1833.
CMR, IV. November 1833, pp. 243-246.
4 lbid., December 1833, pp. 268-269. Quotation from p. 269.
Ibid., pp. 289-291. Bernard Ward attributed the article, signed by 'Friend Thomas', to Thomas Doyle (Sequel to Catholic Emancipation. 1. p. 56). Doyle was born in 1793, educated at St Edmund's and ordained in 1819. He worked on the mission in Southwark and it was because of his efforts that St George's Cathedral was built. Doyle died in 1879. See Gil/Ow, II, pp. 103-105.
6 British Ii'Iagazine, V. January 1834, pp. 76-77. Quotation from p. 77.
195 support of bishops-in-ordinary had the 'character of a menace'.' He therefore expressed to
Bramston and Griffiths his 'deep regret' at what McDonnell had printed and made him pledge
not to comment further on the matter.2
McDonnell obeyed his bishop throughout the next year and did not discuss the hierarchy. But,
as already noted, as soon as the waters had calmed, he renewed the call for the reform of
ecclesiastical government with his editorial of January 1835. This prompted one unknown
author, styling himself 'GHS', to write to the Catholic Magazine that, while the present mode of administration was imperfect, it would be inexpedient for the ancient polity to be restored.
The main fear of 'GUS' was that any move to revive the hierarchy would not only be rejected
by the secular authorities, but would also foment popular anti-Catholic feeling.3 In a second
letter, dated 17 February, he suggested that improvements to the expanding mission could be
achieved prudently by dividing each of the four districts into three parts and increasing the number of Vicars Apostolic accordingly. 4 This 'utilitarian scheme' was at first accepted by
John Jones, but he rejected it on further consideration, confirmed in his belief that the Vicars
Apostolic needed to be replaced by bishops-in-ordinary.5
Jones knew that Lingard could still not be depended on to assist the campaign for ecclesiastical reform: he remained unwilling to get involved in a dispute with the Vicars Apostolic, an attitude that Jones regarded as 'better fitted to a courtier than to an historian'. 6 Jones therefore contacted Mark Aloysius Tierney and suggested that some response to 'GHS' was needed.
Tierney obliged and, using 'S' as his signature, moved the discussion to a consideration of the authority of the Vicars Apostolic with a critique of a recent sermon by Bramston, in which he
'CMR. V. January 1834, p.3.
2 AAW, BP, A71, Walsh to James Bramston, 11 February 1834.
CMR, VI, February 1835, pp. 74-75.
4 /bid., May 1835. pp. 215-216.
UCA, LP, 798, Jones to Tiemey, 27 February 1835.
6 Ibid., 797, Jones to Tiemey, 24 February 1835.
196 had asserted that he had been commissioned directly by God to manage the London District.'
Bramston based his claim on the words of St Paul to the Elders at Ephesus which affirmed that
they had been 'placed by the Holy Ghost, to rule this portion of the church of God' (Acts, XX,
28). Tierney, however, argued that this 'affectionate exhortation' 2 was inadmissible as
evidence of a divine commission because it was not delivered to a general assembly of
bishops. In presenting his case, like Sir John Throckmorton before him, 3 Tierney also carefully
distinguished between bishops-in-ordinary and Vicars Apostolic. The former, he argued,
independently exercised a power that was canonical and descended from Christ; the latter,
however, possessed no such advantage: 'Unknown in the original economy of the church',
Tierney wrote, 'their office and their jurisdiction are alike irregular and novel. They govern a
diocese, for which they were not consecrated; they wield a power, which is not their own.
Their commission is from another bishop, by whose directions they are regulated; to whose
officers they are accountable; and by whom they may be removed at any moment'.4 Where,
then, the writer demanded, was the divine authority to rule which Bramston had ariogated to
himself?
McDonnell's decision to print Tierney's article in the Catholic Magazine made Kirk decide
that he no longer wished to be associated with this controversial publication, and he resigned
as co-editor and proprietor on 13 May. On the same day, Henry Weedall also withdrew his
support for the Catholic Magazine. 5 Both men had undoubtedly heard reports that the bishops,
'apprehensive of the days of Berrington and Gandolphi',6 were preparing to use their crosiers
as clubs to fell the Catholic Magazine to the ground, and they certainly knew that McDonnell
had received many letters condemning Tierney's paper. One angry correspondent was Joseph
CMR. VI, May 1835, PP. 217-220. For identification of Tierney as the author, see CUL, Add. 9419, TP. Jones to Tierney, 29 March and 18 June 1835; NDA, Pre Al/2, Foley to Husenbeth, 5 November 1835; BAA. SC/C2l . Husenbeth, 'Memoirs of Parkers', II, p. 332.
2 CMR, VI, May 1835. p. 218.
See above. p. 58.
' CMR, VI, May 1835. p. 220.
Ibid., June 1835, p. clxxxii.
6 CUL, Add. 9419, TP, Jones to Tierney, 18 June 1835. See above, p. 56, pp. 64-68, pp. 70-73, pp. 94- 97andp. 107.
197 Curr; writing as 'Crito', he lamented that the Catholic Magazine had brought 'our
ecclesiastical superiors into contempt', and threatened to enter the discussion on Bramston's
behalf if 'S' did not retract his 'censorious strictures'.' However, an unrepentant Tierney
repeated his assertion that the human institution of Vicar Apostolic could be challenged and
replaced. 1-le also took the opportunity to castigate John Abbot who had pronounced his first
essay to be heretical, 2 disdainfully referring to the Vicar General of the Midland District as
'some embryo theologian'.3
McDonnell's compulsion to promote controversy between Catholics saddened Curr who, in
reacting to Tierney's second letter, slated the editor for accepting material of 'doubtful
gender'.4 Abbot also expressed disgust that McDonnell had, by 'strange and mysterious
tactics', permitted an 'anonymous assailant' to insult him grossly, and showed anger towards
McDonnell for rejecting his request to write a personal vindication on the basis that the debate
would be restricted in the first instance to articles from Tierney and Curr. 5 Responding to this
decision, Abbot resigned from the proprietorship. During August and September, he
campaigned for McDonnell's removal as editor and, if this did not happen, the end of the
Catholic Magazine.6 These demands were endorsed by other priests who, following the
example set by Kirk, Weedall and Abbot, also ended their patronage of the publication at this
time.7
McDonnell, however, ignored the calls for his resignation and pressed ahead with the debate on the hierarchy. The September number of the Catholic Magazine featured a third letter from
'S' which presented more objections to Bramston's original arguments and charged Curr with
'CMR. VI, June 1835, pp. 282-283. Quotations from p. 282. For confirmation that Curr was 'Crito', see ibid. December 1835. p. 581.
2 /bid., June 1835, p. clxxxii.
Ibid., July 1835, pp. 322-323. Quotation from p. 323.
4 /bid., August 1835, pp. 373-382. Quotation from p. 374.
5 /bid, p.391.
6 /bid, September 1835, pp. 453-454 and October 1835, pp. 478-481.
7 /bid., August 1835, p. ccxvii: September 1835, p. ccxliii; October 1835, p.484.
198 being an adversary who had sacrificed honesty to obtain a 'momentary triumph'.' In answer to this 'unchristian and scandalous' attack, Curr announced to McDonnell his retirement from the disedifying contest and urged that it be concluded at once.2 But McDonnell was unwilling to heed this advice and printed conflicting articles in November from Tierney and Thomas
Joseph Brown,3 Professor of Theology at Downside. 4 Believing Brown had been used as a peg for another obnoxious letter from 'S', Curr wrote again to McDonnell, criticising him for his bias towards Tierney and proposing that, because the Catholic Magazine was increasingly promoting rancour within the Catholic body, it should devote itself exclusively to squabbles and be renamed as 'The Squabbler'.5
Whether or not McDonnell was influenced by this letter, he did change the title of the Catholic
Magazine to the Catholicon with effect from January 1836. The alteration was merely cosmetic, as the new work carried on the objectionable debate over the hierarchy.6
McDonnell's reluctance to forego controversy alarmed the remaining shareholders and there was a mass exodus from the proprietorship in April. 7 This protest severely injured the periodical which staggered on for just two more months until McDonnell admitted defeat early in July and ended the continuous existence of the Catholic Magazine or Catholicon.8 It did not officially fold, however, until May 1837 when McDonnell produced a farewell number of the
Catholicon which contained a personal statement of vindication. He made the following testament of the personal inconvenience that the Catholic periodical press had caused him:
'Much of our labour has been of an irksome description; much has encroached upon our
'CMR, VI, September 1835, pp. 444-452. Quotation from p.444.
2 Ibid.. December 1835. pp. 581-583. Quotation from p. 581.
Born in 1796, Brown was professed as a Benedictine at Downside in 1814 and ordained in 1823. He taught at Downside from 1822, and served as Prior between 1834 and 1840 when he left to become Bishop of Appolonia in partibus and Vicar Apostolic of the newly-created Welsh District. In 1850, Brown was translated to the sees of Newport and Menevia. He died in 1880. See Gil/ow, 1, pp. 325-326.
CMR, VI, November 1835, pp. 511-522. Brow&s letter had already appeared in LDOJ, 1, 26 September 1835, pp. 193-195.
CMR, VI, December 1835, pp. 586-587. Quotation from p. 586.
6 Catho/icon, January 1836, pp. 43-53 and February 1836, pp. 152-153.
Ibid., June 1836, pp. cxix-cxx.
Ibid., July 1836, p. clxxxi. See BAA, SC/C21, Husenbeth, 'Memoirs of Parkers', II, pp. 33 1-332.
199 repose and upon our other avocations, far more than ought to have been expected; much has encroached upon our peace of mind, and the whole has encroached very considerably upon our pocket'.' Ignoring the fact that his attraction to controversy was the cause of his troubles,
McDonnell self-pityingly wrote that the Catholic Magazine and its successor had been thwarted by 'petty jealousies', 'unhandsome rivalries' and the 'irregular exercise of authority'.2
McDonnell was no doubt referring in part to Wiseman, and not only because he had abandoned the Catholic Magazine in 1834. Wiseman had lately helped establish a quarterly work, the Dublin Review, which, founded as a corrective to McDonnell's liberal and disputatious journalism, led the English Catholic periodical press into the next crucial stage of its development, one where controversy was forced at first to give way to conciliation.
Catholicon, May 1837, p. 513.
2 Ibid. p.512.
200 Chapter Five
Settlement (1836-1843)
When McDonnell renamed the Catholic Magazine and Review as the Caiholicon, the next
chapter in the story of the English Catholic periodical press had already begun. While visiting
London during the autumn of 1835, Nicholas Wiseman gave a series of lectures at the
Sardinian Chapel in Lincoln's Inn Fields which formed a strong public pronouncement of
Roman Catholic tenets and a clear demonstration of the Church's claim to a divinely-ordained
infallible authority. The lectures were specifically designed for Protestant consumption, and
Wiseman made them palatable by disavowing combative polemic in favour of a strategy of
propitiation. As he explained to one audience:
You will naturally at once suppose, that they will be what are commonly called controversial lectures. I must own that I have a great dislike - almost, I will say, an antipathy - to the name; for it supposes that we consider ourselves as in a state of warfare with others; that we adopt that principle.. .of establishing the truth of our doctrines by overthrowing those of others. Now, my brethren, it is not so... We do not think that we have adversaries or enemies whom we have to attack; for we are willing to consider all who are separated from us, as in a state of error, but of involuntary error.'
The lectures enhanced Wiseman's reputation and had a major positive impact, being
celebrated by one commentator as having started a 'serious revival of Catholicism in
England'.2 They also impressed Michael Joseph Quin, the former editor of the Catholic
Journal, now manager of the Morning Chronicle, who thought that the time was right to establish a Catholic quarterly review to overthrow the Catholicon, and challenge the
Edinburgh Review, the long-established Whig organ, and its Tory counterpart, the Quarterly
Review.
Quin contacted Wiseman and asked for his help in this project. The exact details of the meeting are unclear. Wisernan later vaguely wrote that both he and Daniel O'Connell had been
Nicholas Wiseman, Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church 2 vols (London, 2nd edition, 1842), 1, p. 20.
2 Cited Ward, Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, I, p. 233.
201 approached by Quin at the same time, early in 1836.' This was partly supported by Wilfrid
Ward who stated that Wiseman's help was sought after he had completed his series of lectures,
but in this version Quin and O'Connell acted together. 2 An entirely different claim has recently been made by Josef L. Altholz that Quin made his overture to Wiseman late in 1835, before
O'Connell had been consulted. 3 Whatever the circumstances, Wiseman, like O'Connell, agreed to help so long as the new periodical continued the conciliatory approach of his lectures and remained free from the refractory spirit which had been a strong feature of Catholic journalism under Andrews and McDonnell. 4 Wiseman wanted the new title to revive the friendly spirit of the Catholic Magazine and Reflector and other early periodicals, but without compromising what he believed ought to be its main objective: to awaken, as a purely orthodox and Ultramontane publication, the slumbering spirit of the Roman Catholic Church
in England, by promoting her 'as she is in the fulness of her growth, with the grandeur of her ritual, the beauty of her devotions, the variety of her institutions'.5
Wiseman anticipated that the review would also chronicle and influence the evolution of the new Anglo-Catholic movement at Oxford which stood firmly against state interference in religious matters, propounded that the Established Church was a divine institution with an apostolic succession, upheld the fundamental principle of dogma over private judgement, and placed an importance on devotionalism. 6 Wiseman had first come into contact with members of the Oxford Movement in April 1 833 when two of its principal architects, Richard Hun-eli
Froude and John Henry Newman, met him in Rome to discuss the terms of a reconciliation between the Churches of England and Rome. The two Oxonians, however, were disappointed, as Wiseman declared that there was no chance of a reunion without a complete acceptance of
'Nicholas Wiseman, Essays on Various Subjects 3 vols (London, 1853), 1, p. vi.
2 Ward, Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, 1, p. 249.
Josef L. Altholz. 'Early Proprietorship of the Dublin Review', Victorian Periodicals Review, XXIII, Summer 1990, p. 54.
Wiseman. bc. cit.
Ibid., p. viii.
6 For more detailed discussion of the Oxford Movement, see R.W. Church, The Oxford Movement: Twelve Years 1833-1845 (London, 1891); Owen Chadwick, The Spirit of the Oxford Movement (Cambridge. 1990).
O2 the Council of Trent. But, inspired by the sincere Catholicity of both Froude and Newman,
Wiseman was certainly not without hope that this would be achieved and began taking an active interest in English affairs in the belief that a 'new era had commenced'.'
In preparation for the time when he expected to return permanently to England, Wiseman immediately replaced the dry antiquarian studies which had previously occupied him with the drafting of plans for the practical advancement of Roman Catholicism throughout the country.
The key to achieving this goal, Wiseman informed William Tandy in August 1834, was to correct the 'defects of our education' by establishing a Catholic centre of learning. 2 This vision was shared by Bishop Baines who had already consulted Wiseman on the possibility of his having a role in a Catholic university at Prior Park in the Western District. This invitation led in the summer of 1835 to Wiseman's arrival in England to negotiate his appointment.
Difficulties soon arose, however, after Wiseman discerned that he would not be given the presidency of the entire institution, but only temporary control of a constituent college. As
Richard J. Schiefen has uncovered, Wiseman's original enthusiasm was also tempered on discovering a lack of discipline and spirituality within Prior Park which caused him to leave the place 'angry and disappointed'.3
The visit to England, of course, was not wasted, as Wiseman made some important contacts, none more so than John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, then the most important benefactor of the
English Catholic Church and leading patron of the architectural Gothic Revival, 4 who invited him to stay at Alton Towers in Staffordshire. Wiseman renewed an old acquaintance here with
Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, now a country squire in Leicestershire, whom he had met for the first time a few years before in Rome. Phillipps was closely involved with Shrewsbury in a mission to convert England to a neo-medieval Christianity, and the efforts of the two men, in
Cited Ward, Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, I, p. 119. See Wiseman, Essays on Various Subjects, II, p. vii; Schiefen, Nicholas Wiseman, pp. 61-62; lan Ker, John Henry Newman (Oxford, 1988), pp. 69-70; Sheridan Gilley, Newman tind His Age (London, 1990), p. 98; John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua (Harmondsworth, 1994), PP. 48-50.
2 UCA, WP, 793, Wiseman to Tandy, 6 August 1834.
Schiefen, op. cit.. pp. 55-61. Quotation cited P. 59.
"Talbot was born in 1791 and inherited his title in 1827. He died in 1852. See Gillow, V, pp. 503-505; Den is Gynn, Lord Shrewsbury, Pugin and the Catholic Revival (London, 1946).
203 association with Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin, the eccentric convert-architect, encouraged Wiseman that Catholicism was indeed being revived in England.'
From Staffordshire, Wiseman set out for London where he stayed with his friend Henry
Ridgard Bagshawe, a lawyer who was destined to become, in October 1861, one of the first
Catholics to be appointed a judge since the Reformation. Born in Lincolnshire in 1799,
Bagshawe had been brought up in a staunchly Protestant family and was educated at Trinity
College, Cambridge. At some point just before the period under discussion, he embraced the
Roman Catholic faith, no doubt influenced by his wife Catherine who had formally converted in 1832, although he was not confirmed a Catholic until 17 June 1838.2 It was while he was staying in London as Bagshawe's guest that Wiseman first met Quin who presented him with the opportunity to realise a separate ambition to establish a 'good journal' which would 'lead the catholic mind'.3
By 24 February 1836, Wiseman, O'Connell and Quin had finished drafting their plans for a quarterly work named the Dublin Review, and they issued a prospectus which stated that it would defend Catholicism by elucidating its 'most essential principles' and advance the
'improvement of man in his religious, social, and political pursuits'. This publication, the proprietors said, was needed to counter anti-Catholic organisations which had lately increased their efforts to deprive Catholics of the benefits of emancipation and to 'render the very name of our ancient faith odious to the nation'.4 As Wiseman confidently told the Earl of
Shrewsbury, the Dub/in Review would provoke a positive change in the relationship between
Protestants and Catholics, and silence the 'Exeter Hall mountebanks'.5
'Schiefen, Nicholas Wiseman, p. 56 and pp. 62-63.
2 R.G. Newton, A Bagshawe Genealogy: The Descendants of Sir William Chambers and Lady Helen Bagshawe (Sheffield, 1994), PP. 6-7. 1 am grateful to Mr T.J. Bagshawe for directing me to this source and to Mr L.E. Bagshawe for supplying me with other information on Henry Ridgard Bagshawe.
UCA, WP, 793, Wiseman to Tandy, 6 August 1834.
' Quotations from a copy of the prospectus preserved in the library of Allen Hall, London as a prefatory insert to the number of the Catholicon for March l836.
AAW, WP, W3/l6/4a, Wiseman to the Earl of Shrewsbury, 12 March 1836.
204 The name chosen for the periodical omitted any reference to its religious identity in order to
reach a non-Catholic audience. The title reflected the proprietors' intention that, although it
was to be edited, published and printed in London, the Dublin Review would serve as a visible
representative of Ireland in the 'arena of critical literature'.' The periodical also revealed its
Gaelic identity by its redolent green covers, embellished on the front with the Irish national
coat of arms and motto 'Eiré go bráth'. 2 This decision was based on economic as well as
ideological reasons, as it was intende& to make the Dublin Review attractive to a largely
untapped and potentially lucrative Irish Catholic market.3 The editors of the Catholic
Magazine and Review, like William Eusebius Andrews before them, had identified Ireland as a
possible source of revenue and attempted without much success to procure subscriptions there
in the autumn of I 833. The fact that the Catholic Magazine had not profited in Ireland did not
discourage the founders of the Dublin Review who commissioned several agents there to
distribute the work before the first number had left the press.
The three proprietors of the Dublin Review showed more foresight on 5 March 1836 when,
anticipating an initial negative return, they established a guarantee fund of 'at least one
thousand pounds' to indemnif,' the publisher, Joseph Booker, against any loss. This financial
reserve was to be managed by a committee of subscribers who were to use it when absolutely
necessary and 'only in such proportions as the case may require'.5 Writing to the Earl of
Shrewsbury, Wiseman explained that it was unlikely that there would be any need to touch the
fund; according to him, this was merely a 'security before the public who believe all catholic
undertakings of this class have failed from want of capital'. 6 But Booker was not as confident
as Wiseman and, fearful of the risk involved, he resigned as publisher just before the first
'Quotation from the prospectus for the Dublin Review in the Catholicon, March 1836.
2 ireland forever'.
Leo J. Walsh, William G. Ward and the Dublin Review', Ph.D. Thesis (University of Columbia, 1962), p. 48.
See above, p. 189. AAW, WP, W3/16/4b, 'Printed Circular', 8 March 1836. The amount eventually collected from subscribers for the guarantee fund was only £500 (UCA, WP, 261b, 'Printed Circular', 8 November 1836).
6 AAW, WP, W3/16/4a, Wiseman to Shrewsbury, 12 March 1836.
205 number of the Dublin Review was due to appear. Fortunately, the vacant position of principal
'commission agent and nominal publisher' was immediately filled by William Spooner.'
Having survived this scare, the Dublin Review made its debut in May 1836. Produced by Quin, the executive editor, as an amalgam of learned articles, it presented a rich picture of Catholic society as consisting of 'men of science and letters as well as men of leisure, historians and antiquarians and lovers of art, their life tinged everywhere by their religion, and yet full of human interest and zest'.2 Consistent with the format of a quarterly, the work was, in the words of one chronicler, 'grave, dignified, erudite'; every article was '[hung] upon its own proper peg, in the form of a book or books... duly cited at its head', and contained 'reflections of a very general nature', often of little or no direct relationship to the publication or publications purportedly being reviewed.3 However, one thing that the Dublin Review conspicuously did not have was a section for correspondence, indicating quite clearly that it was not intended, unlike previous Catholic periodicals, to host controversial debates.
The most important essay in the first number of the Dublin Review was Wiseman's, under the title of 'The Oxford Controversy'.4 It made telling reference to Lamennais whose acquaintance
Wiseman had first made in 1824 and who, in later conversations, had cemented Wiseman's belief that England would return to Rome and share in the Catholic Revival then sweeping across Europe.5 The friendship with Lamennais, however, had recently ended. After closing
L 'Avenir, Lamennais had engaged more fully in the struggle for democracy and, having become estranged from Catholicism, was condemned by the Holy See in June 1834, in the encyclical Singulari nos.6 As a loyal adherent to Rome, Wiseman had, by 1836, severed his ties with Lamennais who was presented to the readers of the Dublin Review as a stark warning
UCA, WP, 26 lb. 'Printed Circular', 8 November 1836.
2 Ward, L?fe and Times of Cardinal Wiseman, I, p. 253.
L.C. Casartelli, 'The First Sixty Years', DR. CXCVIII, April 1936, p. 209.
DR, I, May 1836. pp. 250-265. For attribution of this and other articles in the Dublin Review, see (ed.) 1-loughton, Welleslev Index, Il, pp. 23 if.
Ward, op. ci:., pp. 95-99; Roe. Lamennais and England. pp. 72-74.
6 lbid..p. 17.
206 of the consequences facing those of the same liberal bent. Lamennais had once been a 'bold
and mighty genius', Wiseman wrote, who had 'fought and conquered the rampant infidelity of
the last age'. In an 'ill-fated hour', however, he had swerved from orthodoxy and, refusing to
yield to Rome, had been deserted by his friends and become a 'scathed and shattered oak,
which the lightning hath touched, the energies of his mind exhausted, the intellectual sap dried
up'.'
The main concern of the article, however, was to address the Hampden controversy. Renn
Dickson Hampden, whose Bampton Lectures of 1832 had struck out against Tractarianism and
who had been accused by Newman of holding doctrines tending to heresy, had lately been
appointed by the government to the Regius Professorship of Divinity at Oxford. The huge
uproar and opposition to Hampden's election gave Wiseman a pretext to begin his campaign to
convert members of the Oxford Movement by pointing out to them that, in defending the
dogmatic principle in this case, they represented only a minority of members of the Church of
England. Most communicants of th Established Church, Wiseman said, considered
themselves free to exercise private judgement in religious matters, and it was therefore
illogical for the Tractarians to claim an authority for the Church of England when it was
unclear where that power came from or how it could be exercised. He continued:
We are not chimerical in our views, or over sanguine in our expectations; but we are confident that if the divines, who have censured Dr Hampden, would calmly look upon their principles, without the dread of popery in their hearts to stifle better feeling, if they would fearlessly pursue their own doctrines to their farthest consistent conclusions, they would surely find that they have unguardedly, perhaps unknowingly, rejected the principles of the Reformation, and returned to thoughts and feelings which belong to other times, or at least to another Church.2
Compared with Thomas Arnold's severe analysis of the Hampden controversy in the
Edinburgh Review,3 which slated Newman and his fellow Tractarians as malignant
conspirators whose persecution of l-lampden betrayed their wickedness, Wiseman's article was
kind. It certainly showed that he wanted to help move the Tractarians towards Roman
Wiseman, 'Oxford Controversy', p. 260.
2 Ibid., p. 257.
'The Oxford Malignants and Dr Hampden', Edinburgh Review. LXIII. April 1836. pp. 225-239.
207 Catholicism, and to begin the process, he invited them to enter with a 'friendly spirit' into a constructive dialogue with him and his fellow Catholics.'
Wiseman, however, faced a problem: the Tractarians were unwilling at this stage to pay serious attention to the Dublin Review. In April 1836, Newman noted disdainfully of the periodical that, 'if one wished a plain practical direction as to one's behaviour towards
Romanism, this surely would seem a sufficient one'.2 Harsher still was the response of one contributor to the British Magazine, a monthly work founded in March 1832 to resist liberal reforms of the Established Church.3 In an article called 'Romanism and Dr Wiseman', the anonymous critic cast doubt on Wiseman's motive for offering an olive branch to the
Tractarians. He argued that Wiseman had affected pleasure not to entice High Churchmen into the Catholic fold, but rather to render them 'hateful to all strong protestants'.4 The members of the Oxford Movement were therefore urged to remain firm and not succumb to the designs of the scheming Roman cleric and his 'sad failure' ofajournal.5
A more promising response came from certain quarters of the secular press which appreciated the literary merits and quality of production of the first issue of the Dublin Review and commended the 'manifest desire' of its conductors 'not to startle or offend' 6 Thomas Michael
McDonnell, however, was not so gracious and made it clear that he disapproved of the Dublin
Review, as Wiseman explained to Husenbeth:
We forwarded a copy of the Dublin Review to Birmingham, according to the courtesy of periodicals, but the copy was returned unaccepted, a proceeding quite unprecedented in the profession, as the most hostile journals exchange without any compromise being thereby implied, or any approbation. I should be sorry to think that any pique should have arisen from the establishment of the Dublin R. as the [Catholic] Magazine had formally declared that it would
Wiseman, 'Oxford Controversy', p. 258.
2 John Henry Newman to Thomas Dyke Acland, 27 April 1836, in (eds.) Charles Stephen Dessain, Thomas Gornall, Edward E. Kelly, Ian Ker and Gerard Tracey, The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman 27 vols (London and Oxford, 196 1-1984), V, p. 290.
For the British Magazine, see Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, pp. 51-52.
"British Magazine, IX, June 1836, pp. 668-675. Quotations from p. 672.
Ibid., X, July 1836. p. 92.
6 Aj/zenaez,n 7 May 1836, p. 329. See Spectator. 7 May 1836, pp. 444-445.
208 give way the moment a more extensive periodical should appear in London. Indeed I do not see how one should interfere with the other.'
McDonnell also tried to wound his fledgling rival by publishing a derogatory critique in the
Ca/ho/icon. He clearly resented the reference in the prospectus for the Dublin Review to publications lately printed which had contained material inconsistent with the essential tenets of Catholicism, and considered this to be a slight on his own liberal periodical. In reply, therefore, he pointed out certain flaws in the Dublin Review, passing particular comment on the haste with which the articles had apparently been written, and predicted that it would 'not be long lived' unless immediate improvements were made.2
But a more potent threat to the Dublin Review than McDonnell was the early evidence of internal dissension. One Irish distributor, Michael Staunton, was disgruntled at being charged by William Spooner four shillings and seven pence per copy, which was four pence more than had been agreed and a penny over th price that booksellers were prepared to pay for a periodical that retailed at six shillings. 3 Concerned about the lack of adequate remuneration of his editorial and authorial services, Quin also expressed his early murmurings of discontent. In
June, he told Wiseman that unless he was granted an annual salary of £500, commensurate with his previous wage as manager of the Morning Chronicle, which position he had given up to work on the Dublin Review, he could not continue to edit or write articles for it. Quin also complained that resources were not available to pay 'literary men of talent' for their articles, which made it impossible for him to obtain assistance. He therefore suggested that the guarantee fund be used immediately to recompense both himself and other contributors.4
Although Wiseman was unprepared to draw on the Dublin Review's financial reserves at this time, he nevertheless agreed that expert authors had to be enlisted and accordingly made an effort himself to recruit new writers from Germany and France.5
'UCA, WP, 804, Wiseman to Husenbeth. 4 September 1836.
2 Catholicon, July 1836, pp. 424-431. Quotation from p. 426.
UCA, WP, 244, Michael Staunton to Michael Joseph Quin, 14 May 1836.
Ibid., 247, Quin to Wiseman, 6 June 1836.
Ibid., 248, John Stcinmetz to Wiseman, 15 June 1836; 249, Alexander RiO to Wiseman, 15 June 1836.
209 After the second number of the Dublin Review appeared at the end of July 1836, Wiseman felt confident that its future was assured under Quin's editorial aegis and made arrangements to return to Rome for the beginning of the academic year at the English College. Unfortunately,
Wiseman's optimism was premature because, in October, soon after he left England, Quin travelled to Ireland when he ought to have been preparing the next issue of the Dublin Review.
This journey, Quin later said in his own defence, was undertaken 'partly with the purpose of promoting the circulation of our Journal'.' But Quin's dereliction of duty caused the loss of vital literary material because he was not able to respond to prospective contributors. Indeed, one observer had the impression that Quin 'had not spent half an hour on the third number'.2
Any damage that his Irish excursion might have caused the Dublin Review was of little concern to Quin who, unknown to Wiseman and O'Connell, now had hopes of securing a position in Cuba working in a legal and administrative capacity for the Spanish government for an annual salary of2000.3 He received official confirmation of this appointment on his return to London late in October. In the absence of his co-proprietors, Quin informed thomas
Chisholm Anstey, a lawyer and recent Catholic convert,4 that his Cuban contract began on I
December and he therefore needed o go immediately to Madrid to receive further instructions.5 In the light of this development, Quin abruptly abdicated editorial control, albeit without renouncing his proprietary interest in the Dublin Review, and sent to Bagshawe, acting as secretary of the committee appointed to manage the guarantee fund, 'all the articles which had been contributed for the third number, and the letter-press of one article which was then already in print'. Quin also confided to Bagshawe that the Dublin Review could only succeed if the guarantee fund was applied as 'active capital'. 6 He later confirmed that the unwillingness
UCA, WP, 270, Quin to Wiseman, 2 January 1837.
2 Ibid., 261a, Henry Ridgard Bagshaweto Wiseman, II November 1836.
Ibid.. 263, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 28 November 1836.
Born in 1816 and educated at Wellington College and University College, London, Anstey converted to Catholicism soon before being called to the Bar in 1839. He was elected MP for Youghal in 1847, and in 1854, served briefly as Attorney General of Hong Kong. Anstey died in 1873. See DNB, 1, pp. 512- 513.
AAW. SECP, 7/4, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 25 October 1836:
6 UCA, WP, 261b, 'Printed Circular', 8 November 1836.
210 of Wiseman and the trustees to accept his request earlier in the year for financial help had been the main cause of his resignation.'
Bagshawe emerged from the confusion that followed as the person who secured the Dublin
Review's future. In the first instance, on 7 November, he organised a 'Meeting of Catholic
Gentleman' to debate what was to be done. The proceedings were opened by Bagshawe who outlined the history of the Dublin Review to date and gave assurances that enough articles had been received for at least one more number. This optimism was supported by the accounts for the first two issues which revealed that receipts amounted to £700 against expenses of £540, exclusive of payments for articles and editorial work. As for a future issue, the maximum total cost was estimated to be £400, one-third of which was to be allocated to pay for literary contributions and the services of an -editor, with expected receipts of £340. Although
Bagshawe and his fellow trustees anticipated some financial loss, they agreed that the Dublin
Review should continue, as its failure would injure any similar future undertaking. The committee therefore prudently decided to establish for the exclusive purpose of issuing' a third number a fund of200, half of which was to be raised from subscriptions, while the other £100 was to come from the current reserve. It was also resolved that measures would be taken in consultation with the proprietors to change the organisation of the publication 'on a basis which may be rendered permanent and satisfactory to the whole Catholic body', 2 in the event that the reissue of the Dublin Review was successful.
A replacement editor was, of course, needed and, before leaving for Spain, Quin himself unsuccessfully attempted to persuade both Michael Staunton and Thomas Chishoim Anstey to take on the role.3 An application for the editorship was also made by William Howitt, a Quaker chemist and respected author from Nottingham, who offered to bring out the next number of the Dublin Review for a wage of £50. The fact that a Quaker wanted to help a Catholic periodical is not surprising: according to Professor Bossy, Quakerism and Catholicism were
'UCA, WP, 263, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 28 November 1836.
2 Ibid., 261 b, 'Printed Circular', 8 November 1836.
Ibid., 261a, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 11 November 1836.
' Ibid., 261b. 'Printed Circular', 8 November 1836.
211 English varieties of non-Protestant middle-class Dissent, and he supports his argument by showing that Quaker and Catholic communities in northern England, where both were strong,
'lived amicably side by side' and developed strong social ties.' The close affinity between
Catholics and Quakers is seen in O'Connell's reply to Howitt whom he clearly considered a friend: 'The Dublin Review could not possibly have an editor whose talents and integrity would niore strongly justify my confidence', O'Connell wrote, adding that Howitt was 'the person indeed of all others whose assistance I should deem most valuable on all political and literary topics'.2 But there was one major problem: the theological divide between Quakerism - with its rejection of sacraments, an ordained ministry and set forms of worship - and
Catholicism, O'Connell felt, would prevent a Quaker from properly managing a publication which exclusively advocated and promoted the truth of Catholic doctrines. He therefore deferred a decision until Wiseman had been consulted.
Before O'Connell's letter to Wiseman reached Rome, however, the management committee led by Bagshawe had already ruled that l-lowitt was unsuitable, and in what was seen as the first move towards electing a paid rather than a proprietary editor, delegated temporary responsibility for the Dublin Review to Mark Aloysius Tiemey. 3 On learning the trustees' decisions, O'Connell declared that their interference had been impertinent. But after Bagshawe told him that the committee had acted with the sole aim of prserving the proprietors' interests,
O'Connell stated that the Dublin Review had to continue and offered to subscribe any necessary sum to ensure that this was accomplished, beginning with an initial donation of2O.4
This gesture spurred Bagshawe to persuade his fellow trustees to sanction a third issue of the periodical before the guarantee fund of2OO had been raised. Tierney was called to London on
'Bossy, English Catholic Community, pp. 39-2-394. Quotation from p. 393.
2 Daniel O'Connell to William Howitt, 7 November 1836, in (ed.) Maurice R. O'Connell, The Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell 8 vols (Dublin, 1978-1980), V, p. 401.
AAW. SECP, 7/4, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 25 October 1836; UCA, WP, 261a, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 11 November 1836; O'Connell to Wiseman, 7 November 1836, in (ed.) O'Connell, op. cit., pp. 40 1-403.
tJCA, WP, 263, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 28 November 1836. It is documented, in AAW, DRP, 'Printed Circular', 24 April 1837, that O'Connell made a further payment offll to correct a deficiency in the fund for the third number of the Dublin Review. This evidence disproves Anstey's claim that O'Connell subscribed £380 to ensure another issue appeared (William Fagan, The Life and Times of Daniel O'Connell 2 vols (Cork, 1848), 11, pp. 594-598). 1-lowever, the £380 correlates with the sum that the periodical's conductors stated was O'Connell's full contribution (see below, p.231).
212 21 November to begin his work and Bagshawe assured Wiseman the following week that an
'excellent No. will soon be out'.' This optimism was not misplaced, as Tierney soon after
presented the product of his labours to Charles Richards, the Dublin Review's printer, who
ensured that it reappeared, albeit belatedly, late in December.
Having secured the immediate future of the Dublin Review, the committee moved to reform its
management. The recent difficulties endured by those closely interested in the periodical had
been caused by the fact that sole responsibility for its day-to-day running had been given to
one person only. As a solution to this problem, Bagshawe suggested that a general editor be
employed who would work alongside an advisory council, led by Wiseman as principal
theological censor, which would have the power to check all contributions. More extensive
changes, designed to re-establish the Dublin Review as a publicly-accountable organ, were also
offered to the proprietors for their approval. At first, Bagshawe said that the ownership of the
publication should be changed to allow the trustees a portion of control worth forty-two
percent. Quin and O'Connell, it was outlined, would together own a little under one-third of
the property, while Wiseman, in recognition of his extra input as theological consultant, would
receive the outstanding twenty-five percent for himself'. Ensuing talks, however, resulted in
changes to these quotas, with the collective control of Wiseman, O'Connell and Quin reduced
to thirty-three percent of the whole, and the outstanding stock held, as Bagshawe wanted, by a
charitable trust.2
The last concept was designed to transform the Dublin Review from a money-making venture
into a philanthropic enterprise, by applying any surplus receipts to a variety of worthy causes.
This plan was opposed by Quin who denigrated it as 'absurd' and said that the 'only principle
of success was the hope of private profit'. 3 But it was welcomed by Wiseman, O'Connell and the trustees who permitted Bagshawe to publicise relevant details. A circular was accordingly
'UCA, WP, 263, Bagshawe to Wiseman. 28 November 1836.
2 Ibid., 261a and 263, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 11 and 28 November 1836; AAW, SECP, 7/4, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 25 October 1836. 31 December 1836 and 28 January 1837; ibid., DRP, 'Printed Circular', 24 April 1837.
UCA, WP, 263, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 28 November 1836. See hA, O'Connell Papers, N15!l, Bagshawe to O'Connell, 1836/1837.
213 released early in 1837, ostensibly to ask the British Catholic community to raise £1000 to ensure that the Dublin Review continued to benefit from the best editorial assistance and finest literary contributions. l-lowever, Bagshawe stated, after the expenses for every number had been paid, the proceeds from sales of the Dublin Review, up to a maximum of800, would be given over for the use of 'such charity or charities as may be selected by Trustees'. Bagshawe also conveyed that all future profits would belong to the proprietors, once the whole of the amount set aside for philanthropic purposes had been spent.'
Bagshawe's scheme was endorsed on 25 February 1837 at a general meeting of Catholics, and an account was published two months later of the decisions reached. Appended to this document was a printed list of over one hundred lay and clerical subscribers to the new fund.
Replete with details of donations, the circular showed the breadth of financial support, unprecedented in the history thus far of the English Catholic periodical press, that the Dublin
Review was receiving, ranging from £210 from O'Connell, to a combined offering of40 from the Vicars Apostolic of England and Scotland, to the Earl of Shrewsbury's £20, to the five shillings donated by 'A poor Person'.2 It also testified that Wiseman and Bagshawe had together presented £20, while John Lingard, finding himself powerless to refuse a request for financial assistance from Philip Henry Howard, the Catholic MP for Carlisle, who had kindly
'franked hundreds of letters' at Westminster on his behalf, seth £3 from Hornby.3
Besides setting the Dublin Review on a sound financial footing, thereby securing its immediate future, Bagshawe also played a considerable part in removing Quin from the proprietorship. As early as 7 November 1836, O'Connell had argued that he 'should resign his share of the work',4 but this could not be done until Wiseman, influenced directly by
Bagshawe, 'decided not to go on with Quin'.5 Since 24 November, when Quin returned to
AAW. WP, Wl/6/l (2), 'Printed Circular'. 18 February 1837.
2 Ibid., DRP, Printed Circular', 24 April 1837.
UCA, LP, 899, Lingard to John Walker, 1837.
O'Connell to Wiseman, 7 November 1836, in (ed.) O'Connell. Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell, V. p. 403.
AAW, SECP, 7/4, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 28 January 1837.
214 London from Madrid, he had obstructed the trustees by refusing to hand over important
financial documents in his possession. Quin had also caused trouble by demanding
compensation of £300 which he claimed to have spent personally in producing the first two
numbers of the Dublin Review. This ohly angered O'Connell who vented his fury late in
December to Bagshawe:
Mr Quin is behaving it seems in a very strange way. His claim for compensation for his literary labours is really quite preposterous - I write to him by this post to tell him so and to beg he will account for all monies in his hands. I also request of you that you will act energetically towards him - really am ashamed of him to make such a demand on a concern which he has abandoned at its most critical period. Press him for his accts. - There is no use in mincing the matter. He has behaved exceedingly ill to us when his family interests demanded & therefore justified his abandoning us. He ought not to create any embarrassment to a concern in the ultimate success of which he ought to be so deeply interested. I cannot tell you how disgusted I am at his conduct - There appears to be something so unworthy in it as to give me sensations which I cannot describe...! am annoyed by the conduct of Quin - there is something so peddling in it. I will not consent to pay him a single shilling for his literary )abours. I have told him so in my letter.'
In accordance with Wiseman's instructions, Bagshawe also responded to Quin's claim by
withdrawing his authority to use the Dublin Review's funds. This naturally angered Quin: at a
private meeting with Bagshawe on 30 December, he said that he could no longer work with
Wiseman in the management of the periodical.
Within a matter of days, however, Quin learned that his Cuban appointment had fallen through
and he was therefore forced to retract his rash declaration to Bagshawe. Indeed, in letters of
apology to both O'Connell and Wiseman, Quin expressed his keen desire to be reinstated as
editor of the Dublin Review and, in an attempt at reconciliation, belatedly gave the trustees the
requested accounts.2 This gesture did not prevent the management committee from ruling that
Quin had no case for compensation. Nor did it move Bagshawe to change his opinion that
Quin had to be removed from the proprietorship, either by Wiseman and O'Connell
purchasing his interest or, as Tierney had suggested, by changing the name of the publication.
As isolated as he found himself, Quin had no option but to surrender his position in the Dublin
'Cited AAW, SECP, 7/4, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 31 December 1836.
2 UCA, WP, 270, Quin to Wiseman, 2 January 1837; Quin to O'Connell, 2 January 1837, in (ed.) O'Connell, Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell, VI, pp. 3-4.
215 Review, and in February 1837, a settlement was brokered by Bagshawe who ensured that
O'Connell and Wiseman became co-controllers of the periodical'
The proprietorship of the Dublin Review was vested exclusively in the politician and the priest
until the autumn of 1837 when the printer, Charles Richards, and Charles Dolman, 2 William
Spooner's recent successor as publisher of the work, jointly acquired one-half of the property
on the understanding that editorial policy was to remain O'Connell and Wiseman's preserve.3
This arrangement continued for more than a year until February 1839 when O'Connell,
Wiseman and Richards handed over the fi.ill ownership of the Dublin Review's copyright, stock and effects to Dolman, which was completed on condition that Wiseman continued to supervise the editing of the work. Dolman was also to be indemnified until February 1843 against any losses incurred, up to a maximum of £300 per year. At the end of three years, it was agreed, he was to have the option of carrying on the Dublin Review at his own risk, albeit still under Wiseman's watchful eye. However, if Dolman were to decide at any time to sever his ties with the journal, Wiseman was to regain absolute control of it for himself. 4 The most significant aspect of this change is that the discovery of O'Connell's formal resignation from the management of the Dublin Review annuls a theory5 that he retained a share of the proprietorship until his death in May 1847; his immediate interest in the periodical quite clearly ended eight years before that time.
Before his permanent return to England in the summer of 1840 as President of Oscott College,
Bishop of Melipotamus in partibus and coadjutor to Thomas Walsh in the Midland District,
'UCA. WP, 263. Bagshawe to Wiseman. 28 November 1836; AAW, SECP, 7/4, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 31 December 1836.28 January and 6 March 1837; ibid., DRP, 'Printed Circular', 24 April 1837.
2 Born about 1806. Dolman had originally intended to train as an architect, but his uncle, Joseph Booker, died in 1837 and he decided to help to carry on the family publishing business. Dolman did so until 1858 when the company failed and he retired to Paris. He died in 1863. See Gil/ow, 11, pp. 87-90.
AAW, DRP, Wiseman to Bagshawe. 3 September 1837 and 'General Accounts', August 1838; ibid., WP, W1/6/1 (3). 'Printed Circular', 26 December 1837 and Dolman to Thomas Griffiths, 26 December 1837; UCA. WP, 313. Dolman to Wiseman, 24 Februaiy 1838.
' hA, O'Connell Papers. N15/2-3, Dolman to O'Connell. 5 and II February 1839; AAW, DRP, 'Articles of Agreement', 21 February 1839: CUL, Add. 9419. TP. Dolman to Tierney, 25 February 1839: AAW. WP. WI /6/I (4). Bagshawe to Griffiths. 12 March 1839; UCA, Newshani Papers, Bagshawe to Charles Newsham, 14 March 1839.
(ed.) Houghton. Wel/esley index, II, p. 19; Altholz, 'Early Proprietorship of the Dublin Review', p. 55.
216 Wiseman relied totally on Bagshawe to translate his nominal supremacy over the publication
into reality. The process of achieving this had been made relatively easy after October 1837
when Bagshawe was appointed executive editor in succession to James Smith, the proprietor
of a monthly periodical called the Edinburgh Catholic Magazine,' who had supervised the
production of the fourth, fifth and sixth issues of the Dublin Review after Tierney's quick departure. 2 Like Tierney, Smith had believed that his position in London was long-term, but the expense of hiring a professional journalist to edit three issues for a total payment of £230 had given the proprietors enough reason to replace him with Bagshawe who only expected to be paid £25 for every number.3
Whereas Smith was removed from the editorship purely for economic reasons, his predecessor,
Tierney, had been dismissed because, to quote Richard J. Schiefen, he had 'little sympathy, then or later, with the pro-Roman spirit that Wiseman hoped to instil into English
Catholicism'.4 Tierney was also tainted, in Wiseman's eyes, by his former close association with Thomas Michael McDonnell and the Catholic Magazine. An order from Wiseman had been sent early in 1837 to Bagshawe, who personally liked Tierney and wanted to retain him at least in some auxiliary capacity, to find a replacement editor and thereby deny the liberal faction the opportunity to secure a firm foothold in the Dublin Review.5 Bagshawe faithfully executed this order to the consternation of Tierney's close friend from Southwark, Thomas
Doyle.6 Doyle reportedly said that he would put the Dublin Review down with the support of a phalanx of clergy from the London District unless Tiemey was reinstated. 7 This threat was
The Edinburgh Catholic Magazine was originally published under Smith's editorial and proprietorial auspices from April 1832 to November 1833, reappearing in February 1837. In April 1838, its title was changed to the Catholic Magazine and it remained in print until December 1842.
2 AAW, WP, W1/6/1 (2), 'Printed Circular', 18 February 1837; ibid., DRP, 'Printed Circular', 24 April 1837; Wiseman to Bagshawe, 3 September 1837; and To the Catholic Public', 25 June 1858.
Edinburgh catholic Magazine, I, June 1837, p. 324; AAW, DRP, 'Accounts - Numbers 4, 5 and 6', 31 December 1837; Dolman to Bagshawe, 31 October 1838; 'To the Catholic Public', 25 June 1858.
Schiefen, Nicholas Wiseman, p. 70.
UCA, WP, 263, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 28 November 1836; hA, O'Connell Papers, N 15/1, Bagshawe to OConnell, 1836/1837; AAW, SECP, 7/4, Bagshawe to Wiseman, 28 January 1837.
6 See above, p. 195.
UCA. WP, 277, Doyle to Wiseman, 28 February 1837; 280, Anstey to Wiseman, 3 March 1837.
217 ignored and Tierney was left alone to reflect bitterly that Wiseman and Bagshawe had treated him badly, with little regard or appreciation for the help that he had given to save the Dublin
Review in its hour of need.'
It is not to be assumed, however, that all Catholics holding liberal theological views were excluded from the Dublin Review, as is borne out by the fact that one of the first to whom the proprietors applied for a literary offering was Lingard. He was directly approached in February
1836 by Wiseman who asked for an essay on Methodism. While pleased that a title as 'may do honour' to the English Catholic community had been founded, Lingard nevertheless declined the request. As he carefully explained to Wiseman, this refusal was not because of
'disinclination', but because of 'inability' due to his being occupied with a series of literary engagements which left 'not a moment to spare for anything' other than missionary duties.
However, Lingard did promise that, as soon as the first number of the Dublin Review appeared, he would subscribe to it with a bookseller close to Homby, which he did.2
One of the projects which precluded Lingard from writing for the Dublin Review was a new translation and critical edition of the gospels. 3 This was published anonymously in the summer of 1836 and, designed to undermine the Protestant principle of sola scriptura, rigorously applied an historical methodology in order to expose inconsistencies and errors in the texts. In
Tierney's private opinion, Lingard deserved the 'admiration of all' for producing the work.4
This view was given public expression by Wiseman; writing in the Dublin Review in April
I 837, he celebrated the rare appearance by an English Catholic of a book on the gospels and gave his approval to it:
'CUL, Add. 9418, LP, Tierney to Lingard, 31 May 1839. See Schiefen, Nicholas Wiseman, p. 71.
2 AAW. Stanfield Papers, 20/2/4, Lingard to Wiseman, 29 February 1836. See ibid., DRP, Lingard to Bagshawe, 28 December 1844: '1 have been a subscriber to the review ever since its establishment'.
John Lingard, A New Version of the Four Gospels, With Notes Critical and Explanatory, By a Catholic (London, 1836). See Chinnici, English Catholic Enlightenment, pp. 149-154; Lingard to M.F. Saunders, June/July 1836, in (ed.) Trappes-Lomax, Letters of Dr. John Lingard to Mrs. Thomas Lomax, pp. 63-64 and p. 183, fn. 169; Peter Phillips, 'A New Version of the Four Gospels' (unpublished essay). I am indebted to Reverend Dr Phillips for supplying me with a copy of his paper.
CUL, Add. 9418. LP, Tierney to Lingard, 27 September 1836..
Nicholas Wiseman, 'Catholic Versions of Scripture', DR. II, April 1837, pp. 475-492.
218 Throughout the notes and preface there is a drift which cannot be overlooked, and which has our cordial approbation; it is to place the gospels in their proper light, as narratives not intended to form a complete digest of our Saviour's life, but as 'occasional pieces', so to speak, suggested by particular circumstances, and primarily directed to readers possessing different qualifications from ours, who could understand much that to us must be obscure. The impression on the reader's mind, after having perused this edition, must be, that Christianity never depended, for its code or evidences, upon the compilation of these documents, and that they never could have [been] intended for a rule of faith. Considering the work in this light, we have an additional pleasure in bearing witness to the learning, diligence, and acuteness of its author.'
Nevertheless, Wiseman made some minor criticisms. He felt that there was still a need for an
'authorised edition' of the gospels for English Catholics and he objected to two 'verbal changes' by Lingard: he did not approve of the word 'Messiah' as a replacement for 'Christ' nor of the phrase 'good tidings' for 'gospel', stating that these alterations were 'unnecessary, and likely to startle ordinary readers'.2
As Joseph P. Chinnici and Peter Phillips have both noted, however, Wiseman's published critique was misleading in that most of its seventeen pages were concerned with a general consideration of principles of translation, whereas only two paragraphs dealt directly with
Lingard's work. For an appreciation of what Wiseman actually felt, it is necessary to consult an undated and unpublished paper on Lingard's translation of the gospels, held at Ushaw
College.3 This expounded in minute detail aspects of Lingard's treatise which Wiseman considered overall to be 'unsound'. 'dangerous', 'false', 'heretical', 'vicious' and
'contemptuous', and concluded that it had 'failed in attempting to improve on other versions, and in giving an originally true view of the meaning of the Sacred Text'. 4 In the light of this evidence, Phillips argues that the more critical essay was originally intended for insertion in the Dublin Review, but on being told that Lingard, his childhood tutor at Ushaw, had written the book that he so clearly despised, Wiseman diplomatically exchanged it for a less offensive
Wiseman, 'Catholic Versions of Scripture', p. 492.
2 Ibid.
UCA, WP, Nicholas Wiseman, 'Remarkson the New Version of the Gospels by a Catholic'. See Chinnici, English Catholic Enlightenment, p. 151; Phillips, 'A New Version of the Four Gospels'.
"Quotations from UCA, WP, Wiseman, op. cit., p. 5, p. 8, pp. 13-14 and p. 24.
219 paper which was intended neither to ignite a divisive controversy between Catholics nor end
the hope that Lingard would at some point write for the Dublin Review.
Indeed, only weeks after Wiseman's essay was printed, Lingard was asked again to give the
Dublin Review an article. Bagshawe made the approach: he wanted Lingard to respond to
Thomas Turton, Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, who had lately published a 'most
abusive work against Dr Wiseman's lectures on the Eucharist',' and the anonymous author of
an equally critical paper in the British Critic,2 the long-established organ of the old High
Church.3 Once again, Lingard was unable to oblige, but he did apply on Bagshawe's behalf to
his friend John Walker, now a missioner at Scarborough, for a 'cutting' reply to Turton.4
However, although advised by Lingard that this was a good opportunity to begin a rewarding career writing for the Dublin Review, Walker also refused to help and the strong reply to
Turton that Bagshawe hoped to print in the Review never appeared.5
In 1837 and 1838, Lingard made furthet unsuccessful efforts to procure Walker's talents for the Dublin Review, in the firm belief that he would benefit a periodical which, in his opinion, had certain faults.6 As in McDonnell's Catholic Magazine, there were many printing errors, and Lingard also remarked to Philip Henry Howard that the Dublin Review was blighted by the editor's propensity to insert tedious essays that were 'not at all to the taste of the English' and
UCA, LP, 919, Lingard to Walker, 1837. See Nicholas Wiseman, The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Eucharist, Proved From Scripture. In Eight Lectures. Delivered in the English College, Rome (London, 1836); Thomas Turton, The Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist Considered in Reply to Dr Wiseman 's Argument from Scripture (London, 1837).
2 'The Doctrine of the Eucharist', British Critic, XXII, July 1837, pp. 130-163.
For further information on the British Critic, which had been founded in 1793, see Esther Rhoades I loughton, 'The British Critic and the Oxford Movement', Studies in Bibliography, XVI, 1963, pp. 119- 137; Altholz, Religious Press in Britain, pp. 23-25; Esther Rhoades Houghton and Josef L. Altholz, 'The British Critic, 1824-1843', Victorian Periodicals Review, XXIV, 1991, pp. 111-118.
' UCA, LP, 919, Lingard to Walker, 1837.
Wiseman himself waited another two years before he wrote A Reply to the Rev. Dr. Turton 's 'Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist Considered', Philalethes Cantabrigiensis, The British Critic, and The Church of England Quarterly Review (London, 1839).
6 UCA, LP, 905, Lingard to Walker, 2 October 1837; 899, 911 .and 912, Lingard to Walker, 1838; 914, Lingard to Walker, 17 March 1838. It has been remarked that Walker, although recognised as a fine literary critic, was generally reluctant to see his work in print from a strong feeling that it was not good enough (Haile and Bonney, L(fe and Letters ofJohn Lingard, pp. 260-261).
220 which 'not one reader in one hundred will ever wade through'.' Likewise, writing to Walker in
April 1838, Lingard described the Dublin Review as being 'too learned to be popular'.2 He illustrated his point from Wiseman's recent essay on the claim of the Anglican Church to an apostolic succession3 which, he argued, was uninviting because it had been composed in the style of a divinity lecture.
However harsh these criticisms appeared, they were made with a genuine desire to see the
Dublin Review improve, in order that it might prosper. But Lingard did not think that his direct involvement would be beneficial, as exemplified by his refusing Dolman's urgent request in
April 1839 to review the recently-printed first volume of Tierney's new edition of Charles
Dodd's Church History of England. As Lingard explained, he was once again otherwise occupied and, in any case, did not like the 'profession of a puffer'. 4 Dolman nevertheless persisted and sent Lingard a copy of the book, together with a letter which stated that, unless he produced something quickly, the Dublin Review would not appear in May as advertised.5
Under this pressure, Lingard relented, but he told Tierney: 'I shall set to the work in bad spirits, and almost with a presentiment that I shall not get through it'.6 Although reluctant to write an article, Lingard set to the task at once by asking for Tierney's help:
I could wish to transcribe some passage from Dodd: but do not wish for that purpose to read him over. Cannot you point out some passage which you think most likely to suit?... I ought to quote also some passage from you to point out the manner in which you fulfil the important office of editor. Now unfortunately in this vol. we have nothing but notes by you, which cannot have half the interest which your biographical notices will have. That I can state. Still I am at a loss what note to select as an appetisant: for I fear that quotations in Latin & references are likely rather to drive away than attract many Catholic readers. I wish you would point out one of the most interesting or the most important notes.7
'AAW, DRP, Lingard to Philip Henry Howard, February 1838.
2 UCA, LP, 907, Lingard to Walker, April 1838.
'Tracts for the Times: Anglican Claim of Apostolical Succession', DR, IV, April 1838, pp. 307-335. UCA, LP, 926, Lingard to Walker, 6 July 1839.
CUL, Add. 9418, LP, Tierney to Lingard, 12Apr11 1839; UCA, LP, 925 and 926, Lingard to Walker, 4 May and 6 July 1839.
6 ABSI, LP, Lingard to Tierney, 16 April 1839. See CUL, Add. 9419, TP, Dolman to Tierney, 26 April 1839.
UCA, LP, 813, Lingard to Tierney, 21 April 1839.
221 Tierney quickly suggested that Lingard incorporate a controversial section in which he had argued that Thomas Becket, in protecting the traditional immunity of the clergy from civil prosecution, had been wrong to oppose Henry II. In Tierney's candid opinion, Becket had failed to recognise that the Church was riddled with abuse and had blinded himself to the fact that a defence of clerical immunities was less important than the repression of crimes committed by licentious priests. As far as Tiemey was therefore concerned, while standing alone among his contemporaries 'in the holiness of his life, in the purity of his motives, in the unconquered energy of his character', Becket 'shares the weaknesses of his fellows, and sinks to the level of those about him'.
Lingard agreed that this was a 'proper specimen for insertion' which showed Tiemey's honest scholarship, and he therefore featured it in the draft which he sent to Bagshawe early in May.2
However, for the second time in the history of the English Catholic periodical press, Becket was the cause of controversy3 and Bagshawe raised a strong objection:
I enclose you the proof of your paper on Dodd's Church History & for which I am much obliged - I trust you will excuse my bringing your attention to the passage in pp. 410 & 411 as to St Thomas - you of course are aware that the views there taken are by no means universally acceded to among Catholics & I have reason to believe that Dr Wiseman personally does not concur in them. In the situation in which I am placed I feel called upon to avoid as much as possible all subjects on which Catholics may differ - should therefore feel greatly obliged & relieved if you could have the kindness to withdraw the passage & substitute some other for it, or modify the opinion you express. If this can not be done I fear I shall not do justice to Dr Wiseman if I do not add a Note 'that the conductors of the Review do not concur in the opinions expressed as to St Thomas'. But I shall very unwillingly accept such a course & I take it for granted you would not authorize me to withdraw the passage on my own authority.4
In reply, Lingard, clearly referring to Wiseman, stated his unwillingness to be guided by 'one who is a thousand miles distant',5 but not wishing to cause trouble, still allowed the contentious section to be expunged. This decision pleased Bagshawe who, after replacing the
CUL, Add. 9418, LP, Tierney to Lingard, 24 April 1839; Tierney, Dodd's Church History, 1, pp. 98- 99. Quotations from ibid., p. 99.
2 UCA. LP, 414, Lingard to Bagshawe, 14 May 1839.
3 Seeabove,p. 151.
"CUL, Add. 9418, LP. Bagshawe to Lingard, 13 May 1839.
UCA, LP, 415. Lingard to Tiemey, 14 May 1839.
222 note on Becket with another on John Wycliffe, sent the paper to press.' Lingard, however, was unhappy and confided in Tiemey that he would 'never more write' for the Dublin Review.2
This promise might have been kept had Wiseman not personally asked Lingard, later that year, to write an historical refutation of the 'Puseyite doctrine, that at the Reformation the Church of
England reformed herself: in other words the civil power did no more than aid the church in reforming her doctrine & worship'. 3 Unimpressed by the Anglo-Catholic movement at Oxford, and keen to write on a subject with which he was acquainted, Lingard accepted the challenge, completing the paper in April 1840. It appeared in the Dublin Review in May4 and was received so positively that Bagshawe urged him to contribute more material. 5 To this request,
Lingard replied:
[I have nol objection to write an article now and then for the review. The great difficulty will be to find a subject which may suit me. The last was quite the thing. It regarded a portion of history with which I was acquainted, and I possessed the authorities that were to be consulted, in my own library. But with respect to most subjects the case will be different and, as my own books are chiefly historical and confined to our own history, I cannot undertake to treat of any subject which would require authorities of an other kind for I know not where I could obtain them. Yesterday, I frequently turned the matter over in my mind, but no subject suggested itself, which met my approbation. Perhaps, i we take time and you allow me a vacation for a few weeks, something may happen, or some book may be published on which I should like to write. But I beg that I may not be bound either to time or subject.6
In fact, a year passed before Lingard provided the Dublin Review with his next essay, a powerful piece which corrected the Tractarians' current idea, a 'gorgeous fabric created by the imagination', that the English Church had been independent of Rome until at least the twelfth century.7
CUL, Add. 9418, LP, Tierney to Lingard, 31 May 1839. For the published article, see DR. VI, May 1839, pp. 395-415.
2 UCA, LP, 415, Lingard to Tierney, 14 May 1839.
Ibid., 820. Lingard to Tiemey, 9 April 1840-.
"'Did the Anglican Church Reform Herself?', DR. VIII, May 1840, Pp. 334-373.
AAW, DRP, Dolman to Bagshawe, 10 March and 8 April 1840; CUL, Add. 9418, LP, Tiemey to Lingard, 13 April 1840.
6 AAW, DRP, Lingard to Bagshawe, July 1840.
'The Ancient Church of England, and the Liturgy of the Anglican Church', DR. XI, August 1841, pp. 167-196. Quotation from p. 169. See AAW, DRP, Lingard to Bagshawe, July 1841; UCA, LP, 825, Lingard to Tierney, 28 October 1841.
223 Lingard's two articles in 1840 and 1841 were later credited by Tierney for having done more in their 'quiet, unpretending, unostentatious way, to crush the pretensions, and dissipate the sophistry, of the Oxford writers, than all the essays and all the lucubrations put together of other less retiring writers'. 1 Both papers were also significant in that together they were
Lingard's final known literary contribution to the English Catholic periodical press. A concerted effort was made in the autumn of 1841 by Bagshawe, Dolman and Tiemey to persuade Lingard to review the second, third and fourth volumes of Dodd's Church History.2
However, Lingard rejected these applications principally because, as he explained, his failing eyesight prevented him from completing the work 'in such manner as to be of service' to
Tiemey or the Dublin Review.3 In any case, Lingard said, he was 'desirous of quiet' 4 and therefore chose to draw a conclusive line under an important and eventful, albeit occasional, career in Catholic journalism.
Lingard's resignation was regretted by Bagshawe who, since becoming acting editor, had experienced acute difficulty in recruiting and retaining talented English Catholic authors. In an attempt to resolve this problem, Bagshawe applied in March 1839 to the heads of all the seminaries in England, requesting them to urge their present and former students to provide papers in lieu of a financial donation up to the value of25 per year. 5 But this scheme received no encouragement and Bagshawe therefore had to rely mainly on contributions from Irish
Catholic writers. He depended especially on the generosity of Charles William Russell, 6 the
'mild, unobtrusive, uncontroversial' 7 Professor of Humanity at the Royal College of St Patrick
'Mark Aloysius Tierney, A Memoir oft/ic Rev. John LingardD.D. ( London, 1854), p. 9. 2 AAW, DRP, Dolman to Bagshawe, 25 September 1841; CUL, Add. 9418, LP, Tierney to Lingard, 25 October 1841.
UCA, LP, 825, Lingard to Tierney, 28 October 1841.
AAW. DRP, Lingard to Bagshawe, 6 October 1841.
Ibid., WP, W1/6/1 (4), Bagshawe to Griffiths, 12 March 1839; UCA, Newsham Papers, Bagshawe to Newsham, 14 March 1839.
6 Born in 1812, Russell was educated at Maynooth, and ordained priest and appointed Professor of Humanity in 1835. His association with Maynooth lasted for the whole of his life: he was made Professor of Ecclesiastical History in 1845 and elected President in 1857. Russell died in 1880. See Ambrose Macaulay, Dr Russell of Maynooth(London, 1983).
7 Newman. Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 179.
224 at Maynooth. His first essay for the Dublin Review was published in July 1836' and marked the beginning of a relationship with the work, in which he acted both as author and adviser, that lasted uninterrupted for the next forty years. Russell also provided vital assistance by enlisting a small group of colleagues at Maynooth to write regularly for the Dublin Review, and in assuming full responsibility for this part of the operation, made it easier for Bagshawe to fulfil his own duties in London.2
Outside the gates of Maynooth College, however, the Dublin Review did not have widespread
Irish support. In February 1838, Dolman admitted to Wiseman that sales of the work in Ireland were 'shamefully' small and, unless they were doubled quickly, the Dublin Review was doomed.3 O'Connell was consequently enlisted to make an urgent appeal to the most senior
Catholic clergymen in his country:
I beg leave very respectfully to call your attention to the Dublin Review, of which I am one of the proprietors. The object with which this publication was instituted was and is to afford the Catholic literature of these countries a fair and legitimate mode of exhibiting itself to the people of the British Empire, and especially to the people of Ireland, in the shape most likely to produce a permanent as well as useful effect. The other quarterly publications are in the hands either of avowed and malignant enemies of Catholicity, or of what is worse, insidious and pretended friends, who affect a false liberality at the expense of Catholic doctrines. The Dublin Review, though not intended for purely polemical discussion, contains many articles of the deepest interest to the well-informed Catholic disputant. The name of Dr Wiseman, who is also a proprietor of the work, ensures the orthodoxy of the opinions contained in it, and will be admitted to be in itself a pledge of the extent, and depth, and variety of its scientific, as well as theological information.. .To sustain this • publication, which, while Catholicity is assailed by so many virulent enemies, and has so few friends among the periodical literature, appears to me to be an object of considerable importance; it will be necessary to increase its circulation, and augment the number of purchasers. It is for this reason that I respectfully solicit your aid and friendly co-operation.4
'Versions of Scripture', DR. 1, July 1836, PP. 367-399.
2 For more detailed discussion of Russell's involvement with the Dublin Review, see Matthew Russell, 'Dr Russell's Literary Work', Irish Monthly, XXII, 1894, pp. 632-642; Matthew Russell, 'Dr Russell and the Dublin Review', Irish Monthly, XXIII, 1895, pp. 51-56; P.J. McLaughlin, 'Dr Russell and the Dublin Review', Studies, June 1952, pp. 175-188.
UCA, WP, 313, Dolman to Wiseman, 24 February 1838.
"O'Connell to John MacHale, Archbishop of Tuam, 18 February 1838 and MacHale to OConnell, 27 February 1838, in Mary Frances Cusack, The Liberator: His L?fe and Times 2 vols (Dublin, 1872), II, pp. 642-646 O'Connell to Michael Slattery, Archbishop of Cashel, 18 February 1838, in (ed.) O'Connell, Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell, VI, P. 135.
225 All Irish subscribers were also informed that they would receive their copies of the Dublin
Review carriage free. Nevertheless, in spite of the efforts made, there was little material improvement essentially because, according to one contributor, James Burton Robertson, a
Catholic historian at the University of Bonn,' most booksellers and priests were disinclined to encourage the Dublin Review from a 'mOtive of national jealousy', as they believed that it had minimal relevance to the people of Ireland.2
This view was corroborated by Quin who had lately returned to his hometown of Thurles in
County Tipperary and now earned a living writing for the Dublin Review at a rate of £21 per sheet. On 18 March 1 841, he complained to Dolman that the work was 'not sufficiently Irish either in its tone or topics' and made specific reference to the latest number, published in
February, which he felt did not 'suit the services' of his countrymen. Quin also pointed out that the Dublin Review was 'overladen with matter altogether unreadable by Priest or Layman', tackled subjects that were open to 'great objection', and displayed a 'want of tact' in the arrangement of articles. It was therefore not surprising, he concluded, that, issues of the Dublin
Review were 'scarcely cut open by several who take it in'.3
When Quin wrote to Dolman, a letter appeared in the Dublin Evening Post which took Quin to task for his essay for the most recent number of the Dublin Review. According to the author of the piece, who identified himself only as 'A Priest of the South', 4 Quin's article on 'The Wants of Ireland'5 had furnished a 'ridiculous caricature' of Irish Catholicism. The correspondent said that Quin had calumniated his fellow Catholics by falsely portraying them all as peasants, practising their faith in decaying chapels, guided by 'booted and spurred' clergymen who were mainly concerned with collecting tithes. .However, more obnoxious to 'A Priest of the South'
'James Burton Robertson (1800-1877) was appointed, in 1855, to the Chair of Geography and Modern History at the Catholic University of Ireland by Newman. In 1873, Pius IX conferred on him the title of Doctor of Philosophy. See DNB, XVI, pp. 1297-1298.
2 UCA, WP, 833, Robertson to Wiseman, 25 June 1839.
AAW. DRP, Quin to Dolman, 18 March 1841.
' The author was later revealed to be Patrick Leahy, a Catholic clergyman and member of staff at Thurles College, who was appointed Archbishop of Cashel in 1857 (Dublin Evening Post, 20 April 1841; AAW, DRP, Charles William Russell to Bagshawe, 10 September 1842 and 23 November 1843).
DR, X, February 1841, pp. 2 18-248.
226 than this misrepresentation was Quin's recommendation that the Catholic Church in Ireland should receive financial provision from the government to deliver it from an alleged state of penury. This idea, the writer insisted, had to be rejected and, deriding Quin as an
'ecclesiastical tourist', he advised him not to interfere in the area of religious reform about which, as a layman, he was not qualified to offer an opinion.'
During the weeks that followed, Quin and his critic exchanged six letters in the Dublin
Evening Post.2 Quin charged 'A Priest of the South' with corrupting the meaning of the text and making 'so many uncharitable expressions, so many unjust insinuations, so many violent perversions'.3 In responding to the critique, however, Quin heeded Russell's advice and produced 'brief, calm & dignified' replies which contrasted with the increasingly vituperative letters from his opponent.4 Quin was also careful not to cause the Dublin Review or its management the 'slightest injury' 5 and, assuming full responsibility for the offending essay, succeeded in keeping the periodical out of the short-lived controversy. Hence, soon after the last letter on the subject had been printed, a relieved Russell was able to tell Bagshawe ihat the affair had blown over without having damaged the Dublin Review in any way.6
In defence of 'A Priest of the South', it has to be said that his criticism of 'The Wants of
Ireland' was not intended to harm the Dzblin Review which, he believed, deserved the 'respect of every Irishman for its clever political articles on our country and, more especially, for its many able papers defending the tenets of our religion'. 7 This view was not shared by 'A
Protestant and a Catholic', the authors of a strongly-worded letter against the Dublin Review, published in the Irish weekly newspaper, the Nation, on 25 March. 'A Protestant and a
Catholic' remonstrated with the editors of the Nation for having recommended the Dublin
'Dublin Evening Post, 18 March 1841.
2 lbid.,25 March 1841;30March 1841; lOApril 1841; I3April 1841;2OApril l84I;27April 1841.
3 lbid., 10 April 1841.
' AAW, DRP, Russell to Bagshawe, 31 March 1841.
Ibid., Quin to Bagshawe, 2 April 1841.
6 Ibid., Russell to Bagshawe, May 1841.
Dublin Evening Post, 18 March 1841.
227 Review to the Irish Temperance Reading Rooms, which were part of Father Theobald
Mathew's crusade against drunkenness, and launched a scathing attack on the Review:
With rare exceptions, that periodical has spoken in politics like an oligarch and in religion like a bigot. That it is a zealous supporter of despotism abroad and of Toryism at home, is undeniable. Can its furious desire to see this despotism transferred from Protestant to Catholic hands redeem its other offences? No worse charge could be made against the Irish Catholics than that of sharing the principles of the Dublin Review, nor could there be anything more fatal to all hope for Ireland than a general belief that they shared them. For peace, for prudence, for charity's sake, sir, withdraw that recommendation, and prevent the people, whom your journal can influence beyond any other in the country, not to waste their scanty resources on that costly aggregation of fanaticism and servility. Leave it to its natural friends, 'the English Catholic aristocrats'.
In a clear attempt to undermine the remaining support for the Dublin Review in Ireland, the two writers, ignoring its particularly strong ties with Maynooth College, ended their assault by denouncing it as 'sham-Irish', and warned their compatriots not to read this 'despotic, bigotted, false, and Saxon book'.' The editors of the Nation replied in defence of the Dublin
Review that 'A Catholic and a Protestant' had been unjust. The periodical, they said, was not sham Irish: it had been established with Irish money; most of its contributors were Irishmen, living in Ireland; it regularly contained 'many genuinely liberal and thoroughly Irish articles',2 including a recent essay by Daniel O'Connell's son John, the MP for Kilkenny,3 on the injustices suffered by Ireland; 4 and its publication in England was justified for purely financial reasons. The editors of the Nation, however, would not defend the 'general spirit'5 of the
Dublin Review which, they said, had featured objectionable articles, including one containing remarks against O'Connell.6
Nation. 25 March 1843.
2 Ibid.
John O'Connell was born in 1810. He trained as a lawyer, and served in Parliament between 1832 and 1857. He died in 1858. See DNB, XIV, pp. 834-835.
'Why is Ireland Exempted From the Income Tax?', DR. XIII, August 1842, pp. 155-206.
Nation, 25 March 1843.
6 See below, p. 230.
228 Patrick Murray, Professor of Moral Theology at Maynooth,' recognised that the comments in
the Nation were dangerous. He wrote an urgent letter to O'Connell in which he gave an
assurance that the accusations were untrue, and made the following request: 'If you were to
notice in one of your speeches, the Dublin Review and justify its principles and the tone it
takes, you would certainly serve the good cause which the Review itself is designed to
promote'.2 However, O'Connell failed to help the Dublin Review at this time of need,
ostensibly because he was preoccupied with his current campaign for the Repeal of the Act of
Union of 1800 between Great Britain and Ireland. The Repeal Movement, begun in 1840,
enjoyed the particular support of the proprietors of the Nation and it therefore made no sense
for O'Connell to criticise his political allies, directly or indirectly, for printing material against
the Dublin Review, with which he had not been directly connected since I 839. This was
especially so because, in stark contrast to the Nation, the English managers of the Dublin
Review did not welcome O'Connell's Repeal campaign and had the policy of refusing articles
on the matter, regardless of whether or not they favoured the cause. Repeal simply interfered
with their plans to win over the Tractarians: Newman had lately warned the English Catholics
not to 'come to us with overtures for mutual prayer and religious sympathy' until they had
broken off with O'Connell and other liberal politicians. 4 Repeal was also an issue that divided
the Catholics of the United Kingdom; while the cause was supported by most Irish Catholics,
and some English Catholics, the English Catholic body on the whole conformed with
mainstream political opinion in opposing it.
Resistance to Repeal was particularly strong among the Catholic aristocracy and gentry, led by
Wiseman's Tory friend, the Earl of Shrewsbury. As Earl of Waterford and Wexford,
Murray was born in 1811 and educated at Maynooth College. After his ordination, he continued to work at Maynooth until his death in 1882. See DNB, XIII, pp. 1297-1298.
2 Patrick Murray to O'Connell, 26 March 1843, in (ed.) O'Connell, Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell, VII. p. 198. See Josef L. Altholz, 'Daniel O'Connell and the Dublin Review', Catholic Historical Review, LXXIV, January 1988. PP. 8-9.
For further discussion of the Repeal Movement and the history of the Nation, see Charles Gavan Duffy, Young Ireland (London, 1880); Kevin B. Nowlan, The Politics of Repeal: A Study in the Relations between Great Britain and Ireland, 1841-50 (London, 1965); Richard Davis, The Young Ireland Movement (Dublin. 1988).
4 Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 122.
229 Shrewsbury had a direct interest in the issue and made his feelings clear in 1841 when, in the
second of two letters to Ambrose Lisle Phillipps published that year,' he denounced Repeal as
tending to Chartism and running counter to Christian principles, and condemned the
involvement of the Irish Catholic clergy in the Repeal Movement, lambasting them as a
'political priesthood' that betrayed the 'meek and peaceful spirit of Christianity'. 2 The letter
was quickly and vigorously answered by O'Connell; in a Meek and Modest Reply, he
vehemently attacked Shrewsbury, accusing him of undermining the Repeal Movement to
preserve his own wealth.3
Before Shrewsbury had time to respond in a third letter to Phillipps,4 Bagshawe interjected
with a brief editorial, added to an article by Quin on the Irish policy of Peel's government in
the February 1842 issue of the Dublin Review, which would have confirmed to certain readers
in Ireland that he and Wiseman were more interested in courting favours from English
aristocrats than protecting Irish Catholic interests. It stated that O'Connell had acted unjustly
in besmirching Shrewsbury who, Bagshawe claimed, placed personal interest beneath concern for 'his God, his prince, and his neighbour', and the Liberator was therefore asked to retract his Meek and Modest Reply. 5 As Ambrose Macaulay writes, 6 Bagshawe probably thought that, in writing these comments, he would reunite O'Connell and Shrewsbury. If so, he was sadly misguided because the editorial infuriated O'Connell. Mafters were made worse and more offence was caused when Bagshawe, acting on Wiseman's orders, 7 refused O'Connell the
'John Talbot, A Second Letter to Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, Esq. From the Earl of Shrewsbury. On the Present Posture of Affairs (London, 1841). The first letter to Phillipps was not political and described Shrewsbury's recent encounters with the Estatica of Caldaro and the Addolorata of Capriana, young females who bore the stigmata.
2 lbid.,pp. 18-19.
Daniel OConnell, Observations on Corn Laws, on Political Priority and Ingratitude, and on Clerical and Personal Slander, In the Shape of a Meek and Modest Reply to the Second Letter of the Earl of Shrewsbury, Waterford, and Wexford, To Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, Esq. (Dublin, 1842).
"John Talbot, A Third Letter to Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, Esq. Of Grace Dieu Manor, From John, Earl of Shrewsbury, Chiefly in Reference to His Former Letter 'On the Present Posture of Affairs' (London, 1842).
DR, XII, February 1842, pp. 277-278. Quotation from p. 277.
6 Macaulay, Dr Russell of Maynooth, p. 173.
UCA, WP, 856, Wiseman to Shrewsbury, 7 May 1842: 'With respect to Repeal & its agitation, Universal Suffrage, democracy, &c. &c. I have all along hated & detested them...In proof of this I have
230 opportunity to reply to Shrewsbury in the Dublin Review.' Through his son John, O'Connell conveyed to Bagshawe his unhappiness that the Dublin Review had closed its doors to fair discussion of Repeal2 and, by way of quiet protest, neglected in the months that followed to fulfil his small obligation to subscribe £50 to Dolman's guarantee fund.3
The tension between O'Connell and the management of the Dublin Review peaked in the autumn of 1843 after the Times reported4 that, while speaking at a meeting of the Repeal
Association in Dublin on 16 October, O'Connell had objected to the recent appearance of an unflattering article about the late eminent Irish nationalist statesman, Henry Grattan. 5 Although he stated that he had contributed £1100 to help establish and sustain the Dublin Review,
O'Connell also felt impelled on the same occasion to disclaim any present connection with the work which he now disavowed as representing the intolerant spirit shown by English Catholics towards those whose political or religious views differed from their own. This report drew a hasty response from Bagshawe who, without verifying that O'Connell had indeed made these statements, wrote at length to the editor of the Times, correcting the details of the Liberator's accounts.6 The Times published a shortened form of Bagshawe's letter on 23 October under the heading of 'Mr O'Connell and the Dublin Review': 'We are requested, on the part of the conductors of this publication, to deny Mr O'Connell's statement, "that the setting up of the
Review had cost him £1,100". Upon the accounts of the 'Review only £380.8.5. appears as having been received from Mr O'Connell'.7 The appearance of this statement, in a newspaper
only to state, that with Mr Bagshawe, I have firmly withstood O'C's attempt to introduce Repeal into the Dublin Rev, and have refused the admission of an article from one of his party'.
'AAW, DRP, Wiseman to Bagshawe, April 1842; Bagshawe to John O'Connell, 5 April 1842.
2 Ibid.. John O'Connell to Bagshawe, 11 April 1842.
IJA, O'Connell Papers. N15/5, Dolman to O'Connell, 29 March 1843; AAW, DRP. Dolman to Bagshawe. 6 and 19 October 1843.
' Times, 18 October 1843.
E.V.H. Kenealy. 'Life of Henry Grattan', DR. XV, August 1843, pp. 200-252.
6 AAW, DRP. Bagshawe to 'The Editor of The Times', 19 October 1843.
' Times, 23 October 1843.
231 openly opposed to O'Connell,' was unfortunate and Bagshawe's timing could not have been worse: the campaign for Repeal was gathering pace and Bagshawe's comments sent the message that the Dublin Review was siding itself with O'Connell's increasingly hostile enemies. This was certainly how the situation appeared to Russell. On 30 October, he let
Wiseman know exactly what he felt about the war-note in the Times:
I never took up my pen with a heavier heart than I do now.. .You will of course have seen before this.. .the observations which the communication to the Times has drawn forth. They are issued every where around us, even by the warm friends of the Review. Every one condemns the statement... as ungrateful, & unkind - & above all the.. .[use] of the Times his worst enemy as the organ of the attack, for such it is considered. All that I dreaded & more, has occurred.. .1 see plainly, therefore, that it is impossible the Review should maintain itself here, much less that its circulation could be extended so as to afford a reasonable hope that it would cease to be as it is at present an endless drag upon the time, & what is still worse, upon the peace & happiness of those who are connected with it... [1] hoped against hope that things would improve, & that by active exertions it would be possible to put things on a steadier & truer footing. But this unhappy affair of the Times has dashed all my hopes, &. . .makes it absolutely impossible for us here to continue longer identified with it as we have latterly been.2
The only solution to the problem, Russell told Bagshawe, was to abandon the Dublin Review as a 'hopeless affair'3 - to continue it in the light of what had happened, he wrote, would be tantamount to dragging along an 'endless chain of anxiety & annoyance & thankless labour' 4 - and after two or three months had passed, to revive it under a new title, possibly that of the
Catholic Review, with a 'well organized staff of people who shall thoroughly understand each other, excluding politics altogether, & under [Wiseman's] direct superintendence'. 5 On hearing
Russell's proposal, Wiseman agreed and, without wasting time consulting Dolman, told
Bagshawe that the next issue of the Dublin Review would contain a 'notice of discontinuance'.6
For an account of OConnell's long strained relationship with the Times, which looked on him as 'scum condensed of Irish bog, ruffian, coward, demagogue', see Terence De Vere White, 'English Opinion', in (ed.) Michael Tierney, Daniel O'Connell: Nine Centenary Essays (Dublin, 1949), pp. 206- 234.
2 AAW, DRP. Russell to Wiseman, 30 October 1843.
Ibid., Russell to Bagshawe. 26 October 1843.
Ibid., Russell to Bagshawe, October 1843.
Ibid.
6 Ibid., Wiseman to Bagshawe, 30 October 1843. Almost a month after Wiseman informed Bagshawe of his decision, Doiman heard for the first time from an anonymous source that the Dublin Review had
232 During the next week, Russell's gloom lifted and he approached O'Connell in a final attempt to save the Dublin Review.' This effort was rewarded late in November when John O'Connell,
in an unexpected gesture of conciliation, offered the Dublin Review an article on the subject of
Irish grievances,2 with the promise that it would be written with balance and moderation so as
not to commit Bagshawe and Wiseman to Repeal. 3 Bagshawe, however, was uncertain as to what his response should be and sought the advice of Russell, himself a Repealer, who replied that John O'Connell's proposal was 'providential' and had to be accepted. Russell also
disclosed that he hoped to persuade Daniel O'Connell to address a circular about the Dublin
Review to the clergy and gentry of Ireland. This measure, he thought, was 'absolutely
necessary' to secure the periodical's future and restore its credit in the country. 4 It was therefore with some degree of relief that he informed Bagshawe early in December that
O'Connell, who apparently wanted to renew his friendship with the Dublin Review, had agreed to assist in this way.5
The news that O'Connell was willing to help pleased Wiseman: on 15 December, he sent the
Irish political leader his 'sincere and warm thanks' for offering to 'countenance and support' the Dublin Review. Voicing a hope that O'Connell would continue his revived interest in the
periodical beyond the writing of a circular, Wiseman felt obliged to apologise for the
controversial article about Grattan and to explain the circumstances connected with its
appearance four months before:
When the time of publication drew near, we were disappointed of several papers; our Irish friends had been on vacation, and one of our contributors had an accident which prevented his writing as he had promised. Mr Bagshawe was confined to his bed at Harrogate, and there seemed to be no chance of getting the number out in time. I accordingly went to London, and while I wrote myself to measure, looked out for materials and found only
fairly come to a conclusion'. Enquiring with Bagshawe whether this report was true, Dolman slated that if it was, he would try to continue the publication himself (AAW, DRP, Dolman to Bagshawe, 23 November 1843).
'Ibid., Russell to Bagshawe, 2 November 1843.
2 The Grievances of Ireland', DR. XV, December 1843, pp.317-363.
AAW, DRP, John O'Connell to Bagshawe, 24 November 1843.
Ibid., Russell to Bagshawe, I December 1843.
Ibid., Russell to Bagshawe, 5 December 1843.
233 that paper in Bagshawe's box, that I could even think of. More than once I rejected it, then tried to modify it. 1 cut out phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and made out of it what I could. By this means, with my own article on 'Minor Rites and Ceremonies', 1 got the number out.
'It was to our being thus reduced, actually to desperation, that the appearance of that article
must be attributed', Wiseman added, expressing a sincere hope that any misunderstanding
caused by the Grattan article would soon be forgotten.' His wish was granted: Russell soon
after told Bagshawe that, at a personal meeting with O'Connell, he 'spoke in most friendly
terms of you, & with the deepest admiration of Dr Wiseman'.2
In his letter to O'Connell, Wiseman also justified the future continuation of the Dublin Review.
The periodical, he boldly claimed, had nurtured a 'higher tone of religious feeling' which
could be observed in the nationwide adoption of 'purer principles in Church architecture,
ecclesiastical functions, fine arts, and other appliances of religion'.3 Wiseman maintained that,
through its 'quiet but persevering influence', 4 the Dublin Review had improved the practice of
Catholicism, and he especially referred to an essay on prayer written by himself which, when
printed in November 1 842, had prompted several households and congregations to introduce the office of compline into their evening devotions. However, as Wiseman carefully noted, the
Dublin Review did not exist merely to benefit the Catholic community: its usefulness extended also to non-Catholics from whose number, he boasted, converts had been reaped as a result of their reading articles in the publication.
The best known example of the power of the Dublin Review in this respect was its effect on
John Henry Newman. For the number of August 1839, Wiseman wrote an article which
countered the legitimacy of Anglicanism, and drew a clear parallel between the adherents of the Church of England and the fourth-century African Donatists whose claim to membership of
the Universal Church had been rejected by the Fathers on the basis that a local institution
Wiseman to O'Connell, 15 December 1843: in (ed.) O'Connell, Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell, VII, p. 230.
2 AAW, DRP. Russell to Bagshawe, December 1843.
Wiseman to O'Connell, IS December 1843, in (ed.) O'Connell, op. cii., p. 229.
Ibid.
'Prayer and Prayer Books', DR, XIII, November 1842, pp. 448-485.
234 which was not in communion with Rome was schismatic.' In delivering this verdict at
Carthage in 411 AD, St Augustine had declared his golden sentence: 'Quapropter securus
judicat orbis terrarum, bonos non esse qui se dividunt ab orbe terrarum, in quacumque parte
orbis terrarum'.2 When a friend, Robert Williams, brought the essay to Newman's attention,
these words, recognised as being applicable to Anglicans in the nineteenth century, gave him
his 'first real hit from Romanism'3 and marked the start of the process that led him to convert
to the Catholic faith six years later.
The Dublin Review also had a profound influence on a young lawyer, Frederick Lucas, who in
all probability had been introduced to the periodical by his close friend and fellow-member of
the Middle Temple, Thomas Chisholm Anstey.4 Like Anstey, Lucas was not a Catholic by
birth nor by upbringing: Lucas' family belonged to the Society of Friends and he was schooled
at a Quaker academy in Darlington. From there, in 1829, at the age of seventeen, he went to
University College, London, established for the further education of non-members of the
Church of England, and distinguished himself as an excellent student and public speaker before being called to the Bar. At no point in his early life, however, did Lucas show an active
interest in the Catholic Church. This only revealed itself in 1838 when he suddenly decided to embrace Catholicism and, ignoring pleas from friends and family to reconsider, was received into the faith on 22 December by Randall Lythgoe, Provincial Superior of the Eng'ish jesuits.
According to Wiseman, Lucas attributed his conversion to having read some articles in the
Dublin Review5 and he became involved in its production as co-editor soon after renouncing
Quakerism.6
'Tracts for the Times: Anglican Claim of Apostolical Succession', DR. VII, August 1839, pp. 139-180.
2 'Wherefore the entire world judges with security, that they are not good who separate themselves from the entire world, in whatever part of the entire world'.
Newman to Frederic Rogers, 22 September 1839, in (eds.) Dessain et al., Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, VII, p. 154. See Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, pp. 115-116; E.C. Messenger, 'Wiseman, the Donatists, and Newman: A Dublin Centenary', DR. CCV, July 1939, pp. 110-119.
UCA, WP, 357, Anstey to Wiseman, 3 October 1838; Michael Walsh, The Tablet: 1840-1990. A Commemorative History (London, 1990), p. 3.
Wiseman to O'Connell, 15 December 1843, in (ed.) O'Connell, Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell, VII, p. 229.
AAW. DRP. 'List of Writers and Payments, November 1839 and W.D. Christie to Frederick Lucas, 23 September 1840; Ward. Sequel to Catholic Emancipation, 1, pp. 77-78.
235 Lucas worked for the Dublin Review until the spring of 1840 when he was successflully nominated by Father Lythgoe as founding editor of a Catholic newspaper named the Tablet, which appeared for the first time on 16 May with the motto, 'My errors, if any, are my own. I have no man's proxy', printed directly under the title. Lythgoe clearly believed that Lucas had the strength of character and quality of intellect for the task, which compensated for his limited journalistic experience. He probably also felt certain that Lucas, although a Catholic for only a year, could be trusted to safeguard the Tablet 's religious orthodoxy. An old University College friend, Christopher James Riethmllller, described Lucas as someone who 'never took up a subject by halves'. 'Whatever was the matter in hand, he followed a proposition to its extreme consequences, and often accepted conclusions, that seemed very remote from his first starting- point', RiethmUller explained, adding that when Lucas formed an opinion, 'he held it with a tenacity, and defended it with a vehemence, which astonished and confounded less ardent natures'.1
RiethmUller's words were certainly true of Lucas' rapid conversion: leaving behind the assive quietism of the Quaker faith, he embraced an extreme form of Romanism, marked by an overwhelming emphasis on outward devotion, especially to the Virgin Mary, under whose protection the Tablet was controversially placed in January 1843 when the image of the
Mother and Child was incorporated in the centre of The title-piece above the ancient invocation, 'Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dci genitrix'. 2 There was therefore no question that Lucas would follow Thomas Michael McDonnell's example and allow sceptics space to question Catholic doctrines and practices. As James Jones, McDonnell's successor as missioner at Worksop, facetiously told Wiseman, even the ink used at the offices of the Tablet was a rare and weird compound of 'wormwood, gall, Jesuits bark, Irish black thorn & crab- stick, salt, & gunpowder', soaked with dbuble-distilled vinegar and diluted in a large bottle of holy water.3
Christopher James Riethmuller, Frederick Lucas: A Biography (London. 1862), p. 11.
2 We fly to thy protection, 0 Holy Mother of God'.
UCA. WP, 515, James Jones to Wiseman. 16 March 1848.
236 But Lucas was not as conservative in politics. As Sheridan Gilley convincingly argues, Lucas belonged to the early nineteenth-century association of Ultramontanism with Liberalism which saw that the Church in much of Catholic Europe, above all in France, had been corrupted and made servile to the State by its relationships with dynastic powers.' Like other followers of what Wilfrid Ward termed the 'New Ultramontanism', 2 particularly the Comte de
Montalembert of whom, RiethmUller wrote, Lucas often spoke with high admiration and whose opinions he approached the nearest, Lucas' militant anti-aristocratic religious politics centred on an infallible and independent papal authority which preserved the freedom of the Catholic
Church against attempts by the secular power to control it.3 For its own well-being, Lucas felt that the Church had to disentangle itself from Catholic 'good society' which, he once declared, was nothing but a 'corrupt heap of indifference, of half faith, of cowardice, of selfishness, of unmanly impotence'.4 He particularly wanted the Church to follow the example set in Ireland where Catholicism exerted considerable influence and remained vibrant by attaching itself wholesale to the cause of democracy, placing the needs of peasants over those of peers..
The similarity might not have been apparent to Lythgoe when he suggested him as editor of the
Tablet, but Lucas was, in his political and religious views, William Eusebius Andrews redivivus: an Ultramontane political radical who sympathised strongly with the Irish. Lucas also shared with Andrews the idea that a Catholic journal ought to be conducted fearlessly and robustly, to oppose indifferentism in religion, and to inspire and guide the community it served, showing English Catholics 'when and how to lay aside the defensive tactics which their former situation compelled them to adopt; when and how to take the offensive'. 5 Although his financial guarantors, two Bermondsey Catholic leather merchants named Keasley, allowed him absolute editorial control, Lucas nevertheless began his career at the Tablet writing with
Sheridan Gilley, 'Frederick Lucas, The Tablet and Ireland - A Victorian Forerunner of Liberation Theology', in (ed.) Stuart Mews, Modern Religious Rebels (London, 1993), pp. 60-66, especially p. 60 and p. 62.
2 Ward, William George Ward and the Catholic Revival, Chapter Five.
RiethmUller, Frederick Lucas, p. 84.
Cited Ward, Sequel to Catholic Emancipation, It, p. 33.
Tablet, 1, 30 May 1840, p. 33.
237 moderation and restraint. This approach earned the paper a great deal of support from
Catholics and Protestants. However, it ultimately did not satisfy Lucas who, as his brother
Edward recorded, 'grasped the idea that you cannot cut blocks with a razor'.' He consequently
adopted a sharper form of journalism, not witnessed since the Truthteller and Orthodox
Journal, to denounce those whose political or theological views differed from his own.
In the first Tablet in 1840, in a 'brief confession of political faith', Lucas revealed his disdain
for English party politics. He complained that there was little to distinguish the Tory from the
Whig: each was as pernicious as the other, both committed to preserving the constitution as it
stood and to maintaining the 'Anglican Establishment in a certain degree of pre-eminence over
the Catholic Church'. Of the two parties, however, Lucas stated a slight preference for the
Whigs who had promoted Catholic emancipation and formed the present government, while he
believed that many Tories, the representatives of Protestant Orange bigotry in Ireland and the
Established Church in England, were 'restless, meddling, rash, heedless and impatient'
madmen who could not be trusted to secure the peace of the nation. 2 Among those Lucas
considered insane was Sir John Gerard, a Catholic landowner in Lancashire, who was attacked
in the Tablet in June 1841 for attempting to influence his tenants to vote in the general election
for a Tory Protestant, Sir Francis Egerton, against another English Catholic gentleman, Charles
Towneley, a Liberal. 3 This outburst was successful, as Towneley was voted to Parliament.
However, the Tories were elected to government, with Robert Peel as Prime Minister, and
Lucas' small victory nearly cost him his career.
In February 1841, the Keasleys were made bankrupt. To save the Tablet, Lucas hurriedly
entered into a partnership with John Cox, a member of the firm which had printed the
newspaper since its beginning. But this new arrangement was fraught with difficulty from the
outset, essentially because Lucas proved unwilling to concede to a Tory Protestant like Cox
any control over the editorial policy of an avowedly orthodox Catholic publication. Matters
Edward Lucas. The Life of Frederick Lucas, M.P. 2 vols (London, 1887), 1, p. 38.
2 Tab/el. I, 16 May 1840. p. 1.
Ibid., 11,26 June 1841, p. 409.
238 came to a head in November when Cox, objecting to Lucas' liberal politics, entered into a cabal with Catholic Tories, including, according to Edward Lucas,' the Earl of Shrewsbury. It intended to oust Lucas as editor and replace him with Michael Joseph Quin who apparently had been considered for the editorship in May 1840 before Lucas was nominated, but had then been passed over because of a concern that he would do to the Tablet what he had done to the
Dublin Review.2 The coup was thwarted, however, by Daniel O'Connell, a supporter of the
Tablet since its first issue. He overcame his late resentment of Lucas for inserting an advertisement for a maidservant which specified that 'An Irish person will not suit', 3 and at a public meeting held in Dublin on 19 August defended Lucas and moved that subscriptions be received for him.4
The damaged relationship between Lucas and Cox did not heal and the partnership was eventually dissolved at the end of January 1842, after Lucas gave notice of his intent to recruit another printer. Cox disputed Lucas' right to displace him and threatened legal action, but
Lucas was not perturbed and announced plans to continue the Tablet at his own expense. Cox, however, was equally determined to maintain the Tablet himself, and in the early hours of 25
February, assisted by his solicitor, Charles Innis, and another person, he broke into the newspaper's offices in Bridges Street, leaving with assorted books and papers, including an all-important list of subscribers. When Lucas heard what had happened, he promptly hired several Irishmen to protect him and his property, moved to new premises in nearby Catherine
Street off the Strand, recruited another printer, and on 26 February, published the first issue of his True Tablet as rival to Cox's Tablet, now edited by Quin.5
The conflict between the two newspapers was fought out in public. The first decisive blow was struck on 2 April when Cox and Quin anonymously issued a pamphlet, in which Lucas was
'Lucas, Life of Frederick Lucas, I, pp. 73-74.
2 Quin to O'Connell, 12 March 1842, in (ed.) O'Connell, Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell, VII, p. 140; True Tablet, 23 April 1842, p. 137.
Quotation from the Tablet, II, 24 July 1841, p. 487. See ibid., 31 July 1841, p. 489.
"Lucas. op. cit., p. 74.
Ward. Sequel to Catholic Emancipation, 11. pp. 40-42; Walsh, Tablet: /840-1900, p. 1.
239 described as 'incompetent, dishonest, treacherous, mendacious, and blasphemous'.' They also claimed in the Tablet to have received the support of most English Catholics in Rome, and the
Earl of Shrewsbury at home. Lucas had already crossed swords with Shrewsbury, agreeing with O'Connell that his letters to Ambrose Lisle Phillipps revealed him to be a 'pious fool'2 who was dangerous to religion, and he attacked him again in the True Tablet on 23 April for supporting the Protestant Tablet, alleging that the Earl was plotting to ruin his business.3 Since the beginning of the quarrel, WisemaQ had offered his patronage to both papers: 'I was anxious to keep out of all public quarrels, & especially to avoid being a party to political altercations, & I determined to remain in neutrality, to show impartiality, & try to conciliate', he explained to Shrewsbury, although privately deploring the True Tablet's 'wild democratic principles'.4 However, Wiseman was forced off the fence when Lucas attacked Shrewsbury, and in a letter of 26 April to the True Tablet, he withdrew all connection with the periodical in order to give Cox and Quin his full support. 5 But Shrewsbury and Wiseman's opposition to
Lucas ultimately did not benefit Cox whose only interest in Catholic journalism was financial, and when his Tablet and its successor, a weekly newspaper named the Catholic, failed, he retired quietly from the field in November. Lucas, on the other hand, retained the backing of the Catholic community and was allowed to continue. A letter of support from O'Connell6 instantly won the True Tablet five hundred new subscribers in March 1842, and the Catholic body showed its loyalty at the end of the year by presenting him with £1000 so that he could continue his paper in an enlarged format with the original title restored.7
One person who helped Lucas was Thomas Michael McDonnell. Although by no means a partisan of Lucas, whose religious views he did not support, McDonnell rallied to his side out
Cited True Tablet. 23 April 1842, p. 130.
2 Cited Acheson. 'Catholic Journalism', p. 17.4.
True Tablet. 23 April 1842, pp. 129-137.
UCA, WP, 856, Wiseman to Shrewsbury, 7 May 1842.
True Tablet, 30 April 1842. pp. 154-155.
6 Ibid.. 5 March 1842, p. 25. See Gilley, 'Frederick Lucas, The Tablet and Ireland', p. 66.
Lucas. Life of Frederick Lucas, 1, pp. 76-77.
240 of disgust at the 'horrible bad faith of the uninspired Wiseman', with whom he also had a huge axe to grind.' Since the closure of the Catholicon, McDonnell had become embroiled in a
litigious dispute with Bishop Thomas Walsh over revived plans to build a cathedral in
Birmingham on the site of St Chad's, which Pugin had been appointed to design in 1839.2
McDonnell's attempts to thwart the project were unsuccessful and the building of the cathedral began. In opposing the plans, however, McDonnell had merely fashioned a rod for his own back. This became evident after Wiseman was appointed as Walsh's assistant in the Midland
District in September 1840 and he forced McDonnell from St Peter's in October 1841.
McDonnell quickly found another placement at Torquay and began writing a series of letters for public circulation, vindicating himself against Wiseman, in his opinion a 'foreigner, not only by birth, but also by education', 3 -and others who had engineered his departure from
Birmingham.4 McDonnell was also given space by Lucas in the True Tablet in September
1842 to counter Wiseman's recent article for the Dublin Review on 'Ecclesiastical
Organisation'.5 In his essay, Wiseman argued that, while England was not yet prepared, for the introduction of a regular hierarchy, the system of ecclesiastical government for Catholics could be improved with the establishment of new auxiliary institutions. He specifically suggested appointing a small commission, composed of persons of 'prudence, sagacity, learning, and application', which would be assigned the task of managing the mission in accordance with canon law.6 McDonnell, for whom nothing less than the full restoration of the hierarchy would do, was sceptical; in a letter which harked back to the discussion on the hierarchy in the
Catholic Magazine and Caiholicon,7 he replied that the suggested change was unnecessary and
l CUL, Add. 9419, TP, McDonnell to Tierney, 28 September 1842. See ibid., McDonnell to Tierney, 9 November 1843.
2 Seeabovc.p. 191.
McDonnell, Case, p. 13.
McDonnell remained in the Western District for the remainder of his life and died at Bath on 25 October 1869. For further details of his later career, see BAA, SC/C21, Husenbeth, 'Memoirs of Parkers'. II, pp. 335-37 1; Gil/ow. IV, pp. 375-378; Champ, 'Priesthood and Politics', pp. 298-301.
True Tablet, 17 September 1842, p. 616.
6 'Ecclesiastical Organisation', DR, XIII, August 1842, pp. 240-251. Quotation from p. 247.
See above, pp. 193-199.
241 inadequate. McDonnell also warned the English Catholic clergy to guard themselves against what he thought was the excessive and irresponsible authority of the episcopate, typified by
Wiseman.
Russell regarded McDonnell's letter as an isolated critique and, while recognising that it was unfriendly to Wiseman, reassured Bagsljawe that Lucas was not 'hostilely affected' towards the Dublin Review.' This opinion, however, had to be revised in the autumn of 1843 when
Lucas effectively declared war on the quarterly. His first target was Bagshawe who was slated on 28 October for the 'grossly gratuitous contradiction' in the Times of O'Connell's claim that he had given £1100 to the Dublin Review. Lucas' relationship with O'Connell had lately been strengthened with his conversion to Repeal, which he had previously resisted, on witnessing at first-hand in January the misery inflicted on the peasantry in Ireland by British misrule.2 His new alliance with Irish nationalism impressed O'Connell who remarked that Lucas was 'the best Englishman, the best in his sentiments and views towards Ireland I ever knew',3 and Lucas was only too willing to reciprocate by condemning Bagshawe's assertion that O'Connell had donated less than £400 to the Dublin Review. Lucas also contended, quoting his friend Anstey, that the Liberator had advanced considerably more than the amount entered on the balance- sheet, including a substantial payment to Quin which had secured his resignation from the proprietorship, and alleged that Bagshawe had manufactured his own accounts to make the readers of the Times believe that O'Connell was 'not a man of his word, and in this particular instance had told a lie'.4
Lucas then turned his attention to Wiseman. At no time in his journalistic career had Lucas supported Wiseman's attempts to conciliate the Tractarians, considering them in the main to be anti-O'Connellite, Hibernophobic Toies who could not be trusted to fulfil Catholic hopes for their conversion. In the issue of the Tablet for 4 November 1843, Lucas' opposition to the
Oxford Movement culminated in a critique of Wiseman for not revealing in the Dublin Review
'AAW, DRP, Russell to Bagshawe, 21 September 1842.
2 Lucas, L(fe of Frederick Lucas, I, pp. 35-36 and p. 123.
Cited Gilley, 'Frederick Lucas, The Tablet and Ireland', p. 67.
"Tablet. IV, 28 October 1843, pp. 675-676. Quotations from p. 675.
242 that an influential group of Tractarians were as anti-Catholic as the Reformationists at Exeter
i-Jail, and for giving 'baseless notions about Oxford and wholesale miraculous conversions'.
Wiseman's problem, Lucas inferred, was that he had been corrupted by the 'system and spirit
of puffing; that diseased frenzy for blowing air-bubbles, and taking pleasure in the gaudy
colours, wherewith the sunlight makes them glitter'. More serious, however, was Lucas'
charge that Wiseman, in concentrating on achieving a 'few barren, noisy, windy triumphs'
from a small number of well-to-do High Churchmen, had diverted the 'channel of Catholic
exertion from those to whom it was first due - our own poor; and from those who next to them
would have yielded the most abundant hqrvest - the poor of other or of no communions'.1
Wiseman was enraged, and pointing to the 'strong evidence of the immense evil which some
recent articles in the Tablet have done to Religion', immediately set about rallying the clergy
to support him in a campaign against Lucas: 'I feel that on the one hand we must not give
[him] a handle for any more such attacks on our converts as though one boasted of them', he
told Tierney, an unlikely bedfellow, 'nor on the other expose ourselves to the reckless abuse
against which even the episcopal character is no protection'. 2 At the end of November, the
bishops met at Oscott College and discussed what measures to take against the Tablet. The
outcome was a stinging rebuke to Lucas from Thomas Griffiths, the Vicar Apostolic of the
London District since July 1836, wamiiig him to desist from attacking eminent ecclesiastics
and stop mixing religion with politics. 'The present character of the Tablet is such', Griffiths
told Lucas, 'that unless it be essentially changed it will be necessary for the Bishop in the
London District where it is printed and whose spiritual subject the editor is, to make known to
his flock that this paper is not to be considered Catholic in principle or in feeling'. 3 Lucas
replied with incredulity and refused to accept that he had done wrong, 4 but he soon relented
and promised Griffiths that the Table! would avoid controversy.5 The authority of the
Tablet. IV, 4 November 1843. pp. 690-69 1.
2 CUL, Add. 9419, TP, Wiseman to Tierney, 6 November 1843.
LDA, Briggs Papers. 1436, Griftiths to Lucas, 19 December 1843.
"Ibid.. 1440, Griffiths to John Briggs, 21 December 1843.
'Ward, Sequel to Catholic Emancipation, II, p. 49.
243 episcopate had firmly been exercised and appeared at long last to have brought peace to the
English Catholic periodical press.
244 Finale (1844)
Despite his promise to Bishop Griffiths, Lucas still opposed the Dublin Review's pandering to the Oxford Movement. It therefore did not come as a surprise that he went back on his word less than two weeks after giving an assurance of his future good behaviour, and issued a scurrilous report that a 'new journal - a sort of opposition concern - is to be started on the approaching ruins of the Dublin Review... The politics, it is said, are to be anti-Irish, the theology anti-Roman'. 1 Lucas also identified Dolman and Tierney as the men responsible for this work, acting in league with a few priests and prominent laymen who opposed the Tablet and its editor. This caused a panic among the Maynooth clergy who were concerned that the
Dublin Review would suffer more damage in Ireland by being associated with an anti-Irish newspaper. Patrick Murray wrote at once to Bagshawe: 'I cannot believe that such an insane project is entertained: a paper of that sort would not last 3 months. But if any such thing is in contemplation for God's sake dissuade Dolman from having any thing to do with it'.2
However, Murray need not have worried because, as Tierney told Lucas in a letter of 2
January 1844, the report was 'pure fabrication'. Dolman also acted swiftly and denied having any interest in the project, claiming to have been ignorant of it until its announcement in the
Tablet. He further said that the Dublin Review was being continued, and to show that it was not in a desperate state, as the Tablet had made out, told Lucas that its thirtieth number was to appear soon.3
On 19 January, days after the new issue of the Dublin Review was published, O'Connell kept his promise to Russell about helping the periodical and addressed a circular to the Irish clergy and laity.4 The Dublin Review, O'Connell began, was a work 'of the utmost value to the cause of Catholicity and genuine liberality'. He pointed out that it was the only quarterly publication which vindicated the character of the Irish and the interests of their religion. More especially,
Tablet, IV, 30 December 1843, p. 817.
2 AAW, DRP, Murray to Bagshawe, 31 December 1843.
Tiemey and Dolman's letters were both published in the Tablet, V, 6 January 1844, p. 2.
See above, p. 233.
245 the Dublin Review was the only Catholic periodical which had fill access to fashionable clubs
and public reading-rooms, and which was circulated extensively among the clergy and in the
colleges of the Church of England. The continuation of an organ, O'Connell wrote, that was
read by people who had previously been 'enemies of the Catholic religion and of the Irish
nation', was vitally important: 'All we desire is to be known as we really and in truth are, that
our tenets should be freed from misrepresentation, and our religious practices rescued from
false glosses and calumnious imputations'. These vital interests could not be placed in better
hands than the Dublin Review which, O'Connell concluded, would fulfil an obligation 'to our
Protestant fellow-countrymen to clear away the mist so foully raised around our creed, and to
show forth to them our Apostolic faith in its genuine brightness and simple truth'.'
The circular certainly succeeded in raising the Dublin Review's profile, and the number of
Irish subscribers increased more than threefold during the first quarter of the year to four
hundred as a result of O'Connell's intercession, with Russell confidently predicting that
another two hundred readers would be enlisted before the autumn. 2 What made O'Connell's
effort remarkable, however, was that he helped the Dublin Review during a critical period in
his life when, as he mentioned in the circular, he faced the 'pressure of other matters'. 3 Along
with other leading figures in the Repeal Movement, including his son John and the executive
editor of the Nation, Charles Gavan Dufl', the Liberator had been indicted in October 1843 on
a charge of conspiring against the government. The trial at the Queen's Bench eventually
began on 15 January 1844 and ended twenty-five days later with the return of guilty verdicts
against all of the accused. Sentencing was adjourned until 30 May when the court ordered that
all the conspirators be imprisoned for nine months, all that is except Daniel O'Connell.
Identified as the principal Repealer, he was condemned to serve a year in gaol. In the end, the
(ed.) W.J. Fitzpatrick, Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell The Liberator 2 vols (London, 1888), 11, pp. 315-3 16.
2 AAW, DRP, Russell to Bagshawe, 2 May 1844.
(ed.) Fitzpatrick, op. cit., p. 315.
246 convicted men were only held for three months before being released in September on appeal to the House of Lords.'
Within weeks of O'Connell being freed, Patrick Murray called on him once again to defend the Dublin Review after the number for September 1844 featured a critical article by Patrick
Murray on a rabidly anti-Catholic work named Ireland and Its Rulers. 2 The author of this book, which had been published anonymously in three parts in 1843, was Daniel Owen
Madden, an Irishman who had recently converted from Rome to Protestantism. An apparently innocuous footnote in Murray's article capitalised on the fact that Madden was an apostate and inferred that he could therefore not be accepted as a credible witness against Catholicism.3
However, this suggestion was rejected outright by Thomas Davis, a Protestant friend of
Madden and one of the original founders of the Nation, who censured Murray in that newspaper on 12 October for his apparent intolerance of non-Catholics. Murray thereupon provided the Dublin Weekly Register, the Nation 's main rival, with a letter written under the pseudonym of 'An Irish Priest' in which, disregarding the overall fairness of the Nation and basing his findings entirely on the contents of the latest issue, he blasted the newspaper for its
'un-Catholic and infidel spirit'.4
The dispute between Murray and Davis coincided with the emergence of serious divisions within Irish nationalist ranks after O'Connell publicly announced on 14 October that he was willing to consider federalism as a satisfactory alternative to full Repeal. This outraged the proprietors of the Nation, the leaders of the so-called Young Ireland movement, who, five days later, directly opposed the Liberator for the first time in their journal. 5 As relations among the
Repealers were strained, it is understandable that Davis believed that O'Connell had some connection with Murray's assault on the Nation. However, O'Connell firmly rejected the idea
For more detailed analysis of the events referred to in this paragraph, see Duffy, Young Ireland, pp. 389-525; Nowlan, Politics of Repeal, pp. 70-72; Davis, Young Ireland Movement, pp. 47-61.
2 'Ireland and its Rulers', DR. XVII, September 1844, pp. 1-34.
Ibid., pp. 2-3.
Dublin Weekly Register, 19 October 1843.
Dully, op. cit., pp. 575-609; Nowlan, op. cit., pp. 74-75; Davis, op. cit., pp. 61-63.
247 of a conspiracy and, writing to Davis on 30 October, vindicated the Dublin Review for
bringing to task the 'odious and disgusting' Madden.' The main significance of this letter was
that it marked O'Connell's final representation on behalf of the Dublin Review, and he
thereafter had no known direct involvement whatsoever in its affairs.
In his dealings with the Dublin Review since 1836, O'Connell had not once tried to force it to
be political: he understood the difficulties that this would cause and was content, as Macaulay
writes, to 'subscribe to it as a Catholic rather than as an Irish politician', 2 even when Wiseman
and Bagshawe embargoed articles on Repeal. But John O'Connell, ambitious to succeed his
father as leader of the Repeal Movement, was not so considerate, as he showed in his reply to
Russell's request for help in circulating the Dublin Review in the Repeal Association's three
hundred reading rooms throughout Ireland. There was one major reason why this was not
possible, John O'Connell wrote: if he advised the Association to subscribe to a Catholic
periodical he would open himself to accusations of discriminating against Protestant
Repealers, which he did not want to do. But John O'Connell went on to bargain with Russell:
he would try to secure the Association's help if the Dublin Review opened its pages to
Ireland's claims and featured 'declaredly Repeal articles - say one no matter how short in each
number'. Unconcerned that this would offend many English readers, John O'Connell then commented that, if his offer were rejected and it continued to be 'all timorous and trimming', the Dublin Review would 'lead but a sickly & precarious life'.3
John O'Connell's letter found its way to Oscott before the end of October, no doubt passed on by Russell, and received Wiseman's personal attention. Wiseman was perturbed by what he read and, stressed by the pressure placed on him to sacrifice the Dublin Review 's principles to a cause 'which before long may endanger religious interests', offered to surrender control of
O'Connell to Thomas Davis, 30 October 1844, in (ed.) O'Connell, Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell, VII, pp. 286-288. Quotation from p. 286. The political background and implications of this controversy are discussed more fully in two articles: Denis Gwynn, 'Young Ireland', in (ed.) Tierney, Daniel O'Connell: Nine Centenary Essays, pp. 190-198; Maurice R. O'Connell, 'Young Ireland and the Catholic Clergy in 1844: Contemporary Deceit and Historical Falsehood', Catholic Historical Review, LXXIV, April 1988, pp. 199-225.
2 Macau lay. Dr Russell of Maynooth, p. 181.
AAW, DRP, John O'Connell to Russell. 12 October 1844.
248 the periodical to Russell and the Maynooth clergy.' The idea of transferring the publication to
Ireland was not new. Sick of the drudger3 of editing the Dublin Review and finding that it was
affecting his work as a lawyer, Bagshawe had suggested the same thing in September when he
proposed James Duffy of Dublin as publisher and asked Russell to take over as editor. But
Russell rejected Bagshawe's plan, explaining that a move to Ireland would damage sales in
England, their 'best market', and what concerned him most, the journal would 'lose weight
with the Tractarians'. He instead suggested that Bagshawe, while 'appearing to the public as
editor', should reduce his workload by delegating responsibility for managing the general
business of the Dublin Review to his eldest son, William Henry Gunning,2 who had produced
the two latest issues, and by allowing Russell to undertake the labour of selecting contributors
and proof-reading manuscripts.3 This was as far as Russell was prepared to go, as he
confirmed in his reply to Wiseman's offer which he likewise declined because the work was
'so essentially Dr Wiseman's & thoroughly identified with him' that it 'would be an anomaly'
if he left it. In the end, no significant change to the editorship took place and Russell removed
Wiseman's main cause of concern by reiterating to John O'Connell that the Dublin Review
could not be used for Repeal propaganda. An alliance with the Repeal Association, he told
Bagshawe, would have brought benefits, but he ultimately decided that it was 'after all not
indispensable & we shall get on well without it'.4
Russell's words about the Repeal Association might easily have been used by him to describe
Charles Dolman. Russell had severely criticised the publisher in the summer of 1844, claiming
that his 'sad mismanagement' threatened the Irish subscription. The main cause of complaint
was that Dolman, concerned about spiralling costs, had refused to sanction extensive
advertising in Ireland which Russell considered vital to the Dublin Review's future success.
Russell also bemoaned the fact that Dolman's timidity and meanness had ensured that copies
'AAW, DRP, Wiseman to Bagshawe, 27 October 1844.
2 William Henry Gunning Bagshawe was born in 1825 and educated at Ushaw then University College, London. Like his father, he belonged to the Middle Temple and practised law. He died in 1901. See Newton, Bags/zawe Genea1o', p. 7.
AAW, DRP, Russell to Bagshawe, 7 September 1844.
' Ibid., Russell to Bagshawe, 1 November 1844.
249 of the quarterly distributed to Irish agents had been sent by sea, so that the numbers issued in
March and June had arrived no earlier than seven days after the advertised publication date.
This 'paltry economy', Russell told Bagshawe, had cost the Dublin Review many direct
subscribers; unwilling to wait, they had placed orders with independent booksellers who had
had the foresight which Dolman lacked to pay the 'petty difference' between sea and rail
carriage, and thus ensured that their supplies arrived before the appointed day of release.'
Russell did not repeat his criticisms of Dolman until 13 October when he complained to
Bagshawe that the 'publishing department' of the Dublin Review was 'abominably conducted'
and suggested that personnel changes had to be made. 2 This advice might not have been
considered had Dolman not tried at that same time to assume absolute control of the
periodical. In a series of letters to Bagshawe, Dolman argued that, no longer indemnified by a
guarantee fund and now liable for all the financial risk of publishing the work, it was only fair
that he should have full ownership of the Dublin Review, together with total responsibility for
its editorial policy. 3 On learning from Bagshawe what Dolman had written, Russell contacted
Wiseman and told him that his proposals were 'entirely absurd, & just such as would render it
impossible to do any good'.4 Wiseman clearly agreed and, on 25 October, gave Bagshawe his
reasons for not conceding power to Dolman:
I should feel that to consent that the Dublin Review should be placed under Mr D's. entire control, would be to deprive it of the character which it now has both here & abroad, of being an exponent of English Catholic principles & feelings and in some sort the organ of the body. It would become exclusively the representative of Mr D's. views on religious & literary questions. As the sole representative from the beginning of the principles which have guided the publication on theological & sacred subjects, I cannot consent to this, without sacrifice of principle, & in some respect breach of faith.5
'AAW, DRP, Russell to Bagshawe, II July 1844.
2 Ibid.. Russell to Bagshawe, 13 October 1844.
Ibid.. Dolman to Bagshawe, 12, 16 and 24 October 1844.
' Ibid., Russell to Bagshawe, 22 October 1844.
Ibid.. Wiseman to Bagshawe, 25 October 1844.
250 Bagshawe conveyed this news to Dolman the next day, telling him that, further negotiations
not being possible, his contract with Wiseman was to be closed with immediate effect so that a
replacement publisher could be found.'
The person chosen to publish the Dublin Review was Thomas Richardson, 2 a Protestant whose
business was based at Derby. He had recently established his reputation by reprinting, with
Wiseman's active support, an affordable series of classic Catholic texts and by releasing, in
January 1844, a periodical called the Catholic Weekly Instructor; Or, Miscellany of Religious,
Instructive, and Entertaining Knowledge which remained in print until December 1 847. It is
indicative of the extent to which the relationship between Dolman and the other parties
concerned in managing the Dublin Review had soured that Bagshawe first approached
Richardson two weeks before he was asked by Wiseman to do so. 4 At that time, Richardson
indicated that he was willing to take part in the ownership of the work, which encouraged
Bagshawe to make a firm offer of the proprietorship on 5 November, just ten days after
Dolman had been forced out. Certain conditions were attached to any deal, the most important
being that, although Richardson was to continue at his personal expense what had been a
losing concern, Wiseman would retain exclusive control over the management of the 'literary
conduct of the work - including the nomination of editors, subeditors, writers, contents of
papers & advertisements'.5 As had also been the case with Dolman, Richardson was not
granted the right to assign the Dublin Review to anyone else without the written consent of
Wiseman to whom the proprietorship of the periodical would automatically revert if
Richardson at any time cancelled the agreement. Even with these provisos, Richardson was
'most eager' 6 to add the Dublin Review to his portfolio, and ownership was finally transferred
'AAW, DRP, Bagshawe to Dolman, 26 October 1844.
2 Richardson was born in 1797. He eventually converted to Catholicism in 1853 and died in 1875. See ibid., Wiseman to Bagshawe, 15 April 1844; Gil/ow, V, p. 414; Acheson, 'Catholic Journalism', pp. 99- 100 and p. 131.
Fletcher, 'Early Catholic Periodicals', p. 301. AAW. DRP, Thomas Richardson to Bagshawe, 12 October 1844.
Ibid., Bagshawe to Richardson, 5 November 1844.
6 IJA, Russell Papers. N8/9016-7, Wiseman to Russell, 9 November 1844.
251 on 26 November when contracts were exchanged and Richardson paid Wiseman a nominal five shillings.'
The decision to replace Dolman with Richardson was a brave one. Since 1842, when he had first produced his reprints of Catholic works, Richardson had faced strong opposition from
Catholic publishers who resented the threat posed to their trade by a Protestant. 2 Therefore, a main concern, voiced by Russell, was that the Dublin Review would lose vital subscriptions by being brought into association with someone as unpopular with the Catholic trade as
Richardson.3 Wiseman himself had originally expressed reservations over Richardson's candidacy, fearing that he would not be able to 'carry the whole Cath. body with him, against
Dolman, who will be at deadly war with him & the Review'. 4 However, Wiseman was soon persuaded by Bagshawe and Richardson to understand that the Dublin Review could only benefit from the assistance of one who had the finances and connections to implement his expansive plans for its future continuation, and with a strong sense of hope for the future, he told Bagshawe soon after that Richardson was entering into the work 'with great spirit& will I doubt not, push it forward greatly'.5
The first issue of the Dublin Review published at Derby came off the press in December 1844.
It marked the official start of a business relationship between Wiseman, Richardson and
Bagshawe which lasted eighteen years and, as Wiseman wrote in December 1845,
Richardson's acquirement of the Dublin Review gave the periodical security and stability. It thus heralded the beginning of what Wiseman termed a 'new epoch' in the history of the
English Catholic periodical press, and he noted that its 'controversial period' was now ended.6
Wiseman could certainly take heart from the fact that the Cisalpines no longer had any
IJA, Russell Papers, N8/89/l-2, 'Memorandum of Agreement', 22 November 1844; AAW, DRP, Bagshawe to Dolman, 26 November 1844.
2 True Tablet, 16 July 1842, pp. 341-342 and 23 July 1842, p. 358; AAW, DRP, Wiseman to Bagshawe, 15 April 1844; Acheson. 'Catholic Journalism', p. 134.
AAW, DRP, Russell to Bagshawe, 28 October 1844.
"Ibid., Wiseman to Bagshawe, October 1844.
Ibid., Wiseman to Bagshawe, November 1844.
6 Nicholas Wiseman, 'The Religious Movement', DR. XIX, December 1845, p. 545.
'252 influence over Catholic journalism, as Tierney admitted in November 1844 when he
complained that he had been denied fair access to the Tablet and had no other means of
defending himself after Lucas savaged his edition of Dodd's Church History for its perceived anti-Jesuit bias.' It was also true that the Dublin Review's uneasy relationship with the Tablet now seemed a thing of the past, as Lucas was back on speaking terms with Wiseman and
Bagshawe after offering to write again for their publication in June 1844.2 More than anything, however, Wisernan celebrated the Dublin Review's role in reviving in Protestant England a
'fire long only smouldering, of warmer piety, brighter hopes, and more fervent love of genuine
Catholic devotion'.3 Having reached out to the Oxford Movement, Wiseman felt that his work had achieved its main objective: nearly two hundred years after Humphrey Peyto had tried to change Protestant attitudes to Catholicism with the first English Catholic periodical, the
Dublin Review had finally persuaded some non-Catholics that 'true Christianity must be
Catholique'.4
Although the English Catholic periodical press had developed greatly. since the Mercurius
Cal holicus, there was a sense in which its preoccupations always showed a continuity with its origins. The history of the Catholic periodical press between 1648 and 1844 had been marked by a tension between two groups of Catholics about whether to stress division from or similarity with a Protestant state and society, whether to emphasise the distinctiveness or eirenicism of Catholicism. In the end, the victory belonged to the party which exalted the clergy over the laity, the bishops over the clergy, and Rome over all, and control over English
Catholic journalism was effectively surrenderçd to a largely Ultramontane hierarchy and to the new Oxford converts. This, with the subsequent stress on Roman devotions and the willing
'CUL, Add. 9419, TP, Tierney to Curr, 29 November 1844.
2 AAW. DRP, Lucas to Bagshawe, 1 June 1844. This ceasefire, however, only lasted until 1848 when the Tablet renewed its attacks on Wiseman and Shrewsbury. Lucas consequently felt it necessary to leave England late the next year and moved his newspaper to Dublin. He quickly settled in Ireland and became as much a thorn in the side of Paul Cullen, Archbishop of Armagh from 1849 and Archbishop of Dublin from 1852. as he had been to Wiseman. Lucas was elected MP for Meath in July 1852 and died at Windsor on 22 October 1855. For a good account of Lucas' later life and career, see Gilley, 'Frederick Lucas, The Tablet and Ireland', pp. 67-80.
Wiseman, 'Religious Movement', p. 544.
4 See above. p. 13.
253 absorption of the counter-cultural Oxonians, looks like success for the party of distinctiveness.
Its ascendancy was challenged only by Lucas' Tablet in Dublin from 1850 to 1855, and then by the radical phase of the monthly Liberal Catholic organ, the Rambler, and its quarterly successor, the Home and Foreign Review, between 1858 and 1864.1
Wiseman, Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster since 1850, opposed the competition to the
Dublin Review until September 1862 when he transferred the ownership of the periodical to
Henry Edward Manning, the man who eventually succeeded him to the purple after his death in February 1865. Then, with the release of the number for April 1863,2 Bagshawe resigned the editorship to the ultra-Ultramontane (although lay) William George Ward, a former fellow of Balliol College, Oxford and leader of the younger Tractarians, who had converted to Rome in September 1 845. With this development, the English Catholic periodical press entered a new period, one that was marked by an extreme show of decorum and deference to clerical authority. This would not have received the approval of the seventeenth-century producers of
Catholic periodicals and the early Cisalpines, and it would certainly have been frowned upon by those radical baiters and biters of bishops, Andrews, McDonnell and Lucas, who, whatever their theological views, stood for a lively and independent press freed from episcopal control.
'fhe Rambler was founded in January 1848 and was supported mainly by new Catholic converts, including Newman who briefly served as its editor in 1859. It came to an end in May 1862 and was replaced two months later by the Home and Foreign Review which lasted only until April 1864. For a full history, see Josef L. Altholz, The Liberal Catholic Movement in England: The Rambler and its Contributors, 1848-1864 (London, 1962).
2 At this time, Richardson also handed over his responsibilities as publisher to the new Catholic firm of Burns and Lambert.
After leaving the Dublin Review, Bagshawe served as a judge in the county courts of Cardigan, Carmarthen and Pembroke, before being appointed to the Clerkenwell circuit in June 1868. He died in May 1870.
254 Appendix
A Catalogue of English Catholic Periodicals, 1648-1844
Introduction
This catalogue is intended to give as much relevant information about those periodicals that are discussed in the main body of this thesis. Under each entry, the reader will be able to identify the following information: the full title of the periodical; the name(s) of compiler(s) [Co], editor(s) [Ed], publisher(s) [Pu], and printer(s) [Pr];' the place and date(s) of publication; the format, number of pages and, where relevant, volumes used; and, except for annual works, the frequency of publication. I have also identified, using the abbreviations below, where copies (not necessarily full runs) of the periodicals are currently located, but I have only given details of the whereabouts of those that I have consulted personally. 2 To help the reader find more information about where other copies of certain periodicals are held, I have made cross-references where possible to one or more of five published bibliographies: (eds.) Carolyn Nelson and Matthew Seccombe, British Newspapers and Periodicals 164 1- 1700: A Short-Title Catalogue of Serials Printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, and British America (New York, 1987) [BNPSTC]; (eds.) James D. Stewart, Muriel E. Hammond and Erwin Saenger, British Union-Catalogue of Periodicals: A Record of the Periodicals of the World, From the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day, in British Libraries 4 vols (London, 1955-1958) [BUCOP]; (ed.) Thomas H. Clancy, English Catholic Books 1641-1 700: A Bibliography: Revised Edition (London, 1996) [CLANCY]; (eds.) F. Blom, J. Blom, F. Korsten and G. Scott, English Catholic Books 1701-1800: A Bibliography (Hants., 1996) [ECBJ; and (ed.) Donald Wing, Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and British America and of English Books Printed in Other Countries 1641- 17004 vols (New York, 1994-1998) [WING].
Library Symbols
AAW Archives of the Archdiocese of AH Allen Hall, London Westminster
CAC Carlisle Cathedral DC Durham Cathedral
DUC Ushaw College, Durham DUL Durham University Library
The insertion of dates in brackets after a person's name indicates the period of their involvement in producing a work in the specified role. The absence of this information shows that the person was involved in producing a periodical without interruption from the start to the end of its life.
2 With the exception of some early copies of the Laity's Directory, including those which belonged to Bishop Brian Foley, former Bishop of Lancaster, who died in December 1999. My efforts to discover the whereabouts of Bishop Foley's library have not proven successful thus far.
255
DWL Dr Williams' Library, London FOL Private Collection of Bishop Foley
HEY Heythrop College, London L British Library, London
LNC Lincoln Cathedral MAP Mapledurham House, Reading
NCL Central Library, Newcastle-upon- NLC Newspaper Library, Colindale Tyne
0 Bodleian Library, Oxford OSC Oscott College, Birmingham
Bibliography and Catalogue
I. Mercurius Catholicus. Communicating his Intelligence from the most learned Protestant Writers, to simple and unlearned People, how they may (among many different Expositions of holy Scripture) know which must needs be truth and consequently which (among so many djffc'rent Religions) must needs be the true Christian Religion, out of which none can attain to Salvation. Number One. Co: Humphrey Peyto. London. 15 September 1648. 4°. 12 pp. L. BNPSTC 295.1; CLANCY 658.
2. Mercurius Cat holicus. Communicating his Intelligence from learned Reformed Protestants, to the ignorant and unlearned sort, how they may know the true Church of Christ, in these doubtful! limes (which the Reverend Synod hath been labouring to doe these 3. Yeares, and hath not effected it) by i/s converting Pagan Kings and Nations to Christianity, proved out of the holy Scriptures, and so acknowledged by Learned Protestants, to be the Marke of the true Church of Christ, out of which there can be no salvation. Number Two. Co: Humphrey Peyto. London. 11 December 1648. 4°. 8 pp. L. BNPSTC 295.2; CLANCY 659.
3. Calendarium Catholicum: Or An Universal! Almanac& 1661. The first after Leap-Year. With Memorable Observations; Never before Printed. Co: Thomas Blount. London. 1660. 12°. 48 pp. 0. CLANCY 106; WING A1321.
4. Calendarium Catholicum: or An Universal Almanack, 1662. The second after Leap-Year. With Memorable Observations, and An Exposition of all the Festival dayes in the Year. Co: Thomas Blount. London. 1661. 12°. 46 pp. CAC. CLANCY 106.3; WING A1321A.
5. A New Almanack, After the Old Fashion; For 1663. The 3d after Leap- Year. Wit1 Memorable Observations: And An Exposition of all the Festival Dayes in the Year. Co: Thomas Blount. London. 1662. 12°. 58 pp. 0. CLANCY 109; WING AI324.
6. Calendarium Catholicuin: Or, An Universal! Almanaclç 1664. Being Leap-Year. With Memorable Observations; And An Exposition of all the Feasts in the Year. Co: Thomas Blount. London. 1663. 12°. 34 pp. DWL. CLANCY 106.4; WING A1321B.
256 7. Calendarium Catholicum: Or, An Universal Almanack, 1666. Being the Second after Leap- Year. With Memorable Observations; And An Exposition of all the Feasts in the Year. Co: Thomas Blount. London. 1665. 12°.LNC. CLANCY 106.5; WING A1321C.
8. The Domestick Intelligence, Or, News both from City and Country. 26 August-S September 1679 [numbers 16-18]. Continued as The True Domestick Intelligence, Or, News both from City and Country. 9 September 1679-14 May 1680 [numbers 19-90]. Ed: Nathaniel Thompson. Pu: Nathaniel Thompson. Pr: Nathaniel Thompson. London. Bi-weekly. Single sheet folio. BNPSTC 113.01-113.90.
Numbers 1-15. Not published. Number 16. 26 August 1679. L. Numbers 16 [sic]-90. 29 August 1679-11/14 May 1680. L; 0.
9. The Loyal Protestant and True Domestick Intelligence, or, News both from City and Country. 9 March 1681-20 March 1683 [numbers 1-247]. Ed: Nathaniel Thompson. Pu: Nathaniel Thompson. Pr: Nathaniel Thompson. London. Bi-weekly and tn-weekly.' Single sheet folio. BNPSTC 245.00 1-245.247.
Number 1.9 March 1681. L; 0. Number2. 12 March 1681.0. Numbers 3-22. 15 March-21 May 1681. L; 0. Number 23.24 May 1681. DUL; L; 0. Numbers 24-34.28 May-2 July 1681. L; 0. Number 35.5 July 1681. DUL; L; 0. Number 36.9 July 1681. L; 0. Number 37. 12 July 1681. DUL; L; 0. Numbers 38-39. 16-19 July 1681. L; 0. Number 40.23 July 1681. DUL; L; 0. Numbers 41-51.26 July-30 August 1681. L; 0. Number 52. 3 September 1681. DUL; L; 0. Numbers 53-58. 6-24 September 1681. L; 0. Number 59. 27 September 1681. DUL; L; 0. Number 60. 1 October 1681. L; 0. Number 61. 4 October 1681. DUL; L; 0. Numbers 62-92. 8 October-20 December 1681. L; 0. Number 93.22 December 1681. DUL; L; 0. Numbers 94-9 5. 24-2 7 December 1681. L; 0. Numbers 96-97. 29-3 1 December 1681. DUL; L; 0. Numbers 98-107. 3-24 January 1682. L; 0. Number 108.26 January 1682. DUL; L; 0. Numbers 109-117. 28 January-16 February 1682. L; 0. Number 118. 18 February 1682. DUL; L; 0. Numbers 119-146. 21 February-25 April 1682. L; 0. Number 147. 27 April 1682. DUL; L; 0. Numbers 148-153. 29 April-Il May 1682. L; 0. Number 154. 13 May 1682. DUL; L; 0. Numbers 155-170. 16 May-20 June 1682. L; 0. Number 171.22 June 1682. DUL; L; 0. Numbers 172-207. 24 June-14 September 1682. L; 0.
The first number appeared on a Wednesday, but it was published thereafter on Tuesdays and Saturdays. As from 20 October 1681, an extra weekly number was printed on Thursdays.
257 Number 208. 16 September 1682. DUL; L; 0. Numbers 209-247. 19 September 1682-20 March 1683. L; 0.
10. Kalendarium Catholicum For the Year 1686. Co: Henry Hills. Pu: Henry Hills. Pr: Henry 1-lills. London. 1685. 80.40 pp. HEY; 0. CLANCY 108; WING A1324.
11. The Catholick Almanack For the Year 1687. Containing Both the Roman and English Calendar. An Explanation qf the Principal Holy Days of the Whole Year. With Catalogues of the Popes from St. Peter to this present Innocentius XL And of the Kings of England, and Arch-Bishops of Canterbury, from the Year 600, to the Reformation. Co: Hemy Hills. Pu: Henry Hills. Pr: Henry Hills. London. 1686. 8°. 46 pp. L; NCL. CLANCY I07.5; WING A 1388.
12. A Catholic & Protestant Almanack For the Year of our Lord God 1688. Being Leap- Year. The Method of using whereof is shewed in the 61/: Page following. Whereunto is added, An Exposition of the principal Holy-days and Fasts throughout the Year. Co: Henry Hills. Pu:
Henry Hills. Pr: Henry Hills. London. 1687. 12°. 34 pp. DC; 0. CLANCY 107.3; WING A 1389.
13. Calendarium Catholicum Or, An Almanack For the Year of our Lord, 1689. Being the First qfler the Bissextile Or Leap- Year. With an Exposition of all the Principal Holy-Days, Fasts and Feasts of the Year. Also a Useful Chronology of things since the Reformation. Together with a Catalogue of the Lords, Knights and Gentlemen (of the Catholick Religion) that were Slain in the late War, in Defence of their King and Country. Co: Henry Hills. Pu: Henry Hills. Pr: Henry Hills. London. 1688. 8°. L; 0. CLANCY 107; WING C 1383.
14. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini & Missae Celebrandae Stylo Vet. Conform is... MDCCXXII. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1721. 12°. 36 pp. AAW. ECB 2115.
15. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini, & Missae Celebrandae Stylo Vet. Conformis...Anno Bissextili MDCCXX! V. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1723. 12°. 36 pp. AAW. ECB 2116.
16. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini & Missae Celebrandae Slylo Vet. Conformis... MDCCXX V. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meiglian. London. 1724. 12°. 30 pp. AAW. ECB 2117.
17. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini & Missae Celebrandae Slylo Vet. Conformis... MDCCXX VI.
Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1725. 12°. 36 pp. AAW. ECB 2118.
258 18. Ordo Redilandi Officii Divini & Misãae Celebrandae S/yb Vet. Conformis... MDCCXXVII.
Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1726. 12°. 36 pp. DUC. ECB 2119.
19. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divinae & Missae Celebrandae S/yb Vet. Conformis. .. Anno Bissextili MDCCXX VIII. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1727. 12°. 36 pp. AAW. ECB 2120.
20. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini & Missae Celebrandae S/yb Vet: Conformis... MDCCX'(X. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1729. 12°. 24 pp. AAW. ECB 2121.
21. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini & Missae Celebrandae S/yb Vet. Conform is... Anno Bissextili MDCCXXXII. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1731. 12°. 36 pp. AAW. ECB 2122.
22. Ordo Recitandi Officii Dlviii! & Missae Celebrandae, S/yb Veteri Conformis. Pro Anno Domini MDCCXXXIII. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan.
London. 1732. 12°. 36 pp. AAW. ECB 2123.
23. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini & Missae Celebrandae S/yb Vet. Conformis. Pro Anno Domini MDCCXXXIV. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1733. 12°. 36 pp. AAW. ECB 2124.
24. Ordo Red/and! Officil Divini & Missae Celebrandae Stylo Vet. Conformis. Pro Anno Domini MDCCXXXV. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1734. 12°. 32 pp. AAW. ECB 2.125.
25. Ordo Recitandi Offici! Divini El Missae Celebrandae S/yb Veteri Conform is. Cum Supplemento pro P P Soc. lesu. Pro Anno Bisse.xtii MDCCXXXVI. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1735. 12°. 32 pp. AAW. ECB 2126.
26. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini Et Missae Celebrandae S/yb Veteri Conformis. Pro Anno MDCCXXJ( VII. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1736. 12°. 32 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2127.
27. Ordo Recitandi Officil Divini Et Missae Cebebrandae S/yb Veteri Conformis. Pro Anno MDCCXXXIX. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1738. 12°. 36 pp. DUC. ECB 2128.
28. Ordo Recitandi Officil Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno MDCCXL. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1739. 12°. 36 pp. DUC. ECB 2129.
259 29. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno MDCCXLI. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1740. 12°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2130.
30. Ordo Recilandi Offlcii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno MDCCXLII. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1741. 12°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2131.
31. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno MDCCXLIII. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1742. 12°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2132.
32. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno MDCCXLI V. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1743. 12°. 36 pp. DUC. ECB 2133.
33. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Stylo Veteri Conformis Pro Anno MDCCXL V. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1744. 12°. 36 pp. AAW. ECB 2134.
34. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Stylo Veleri Conformis Pro Anno Domini MDCCXL VI!. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1746. 12°. 36 pp. DUC. ECB 2135.
35. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Stylo Veteri Conformis Pro Anno Domini Bissextili MDCCXL VIII. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1747. 12°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2136.
36. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Stylo Veteri Conformis Pro Anno Domini MDCCXLIX. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1748. 12°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2137.
37. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini El M!ssae Celebrandae S/yb Veteri Conformis Pro Anno Domini MDCCL. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1749. 12°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2138.
38. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Slylo Veleri Conformis Pro Anno Domini MDCCLI. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1750. 12°. 36 pp. DUC. ECB 2139.
39. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae S/yb Vet en Usque ad Diem Secundain Seplembris Conformis. Pro Anno Domini Bissextili MDCCLII. Co: Thomas
260 Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1751. 12°. 36 pp. DUC. ECB 2140.
40. Ordo Recitandi Officil Divini El Missae Celebrandae Slylo Veleri Conformis Pro Anno Dornini MDCCLIII. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1752. 12°. 38 pp. DUC. ECB 2141.
41. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae S/yb Veteri Conformis Pro Anno Dornini MDCCLI V. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1753. 12°. 34 pp. DUC. ECB 2142.
42. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Siylo Veteri Conformis Pro Anno Domini MDCCL V. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1754. 12°. 34 pp. DUC. ECB 2143.
43. Ordo Recilandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae. Pro Anno Domini Bissexlili MDCCL VI. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1755. 12°. 34 pp. DUC. ECB 2144.
44. Ordo Recilandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae. Pro Anna Domini MDCCLVIII. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1757. 12°. 34 pp. DUC. ECB 2145.
45. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anna Domini Bissextili MDCCLX. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: .James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1759. 12°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2146.
46. Ordo Redilandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno Domini MDCCLXI. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1760. 12°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2147.
47. Ordo Recilandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno Domini MDCCLXII. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1761. 12°. 36 pp. AAW. ECB 2148.
48. Ordo Recitandi Officli Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno Domini MDCCLXII!. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1762. 12°. 34 pp. AAW. ECB 2149.
49. Ordo Recilandi Officli Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini Bissextili MDCCLXI V. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1763. 12°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2150.
261 50. Ordo Recilandi Officii Divini Et Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCLXV. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1764. 12°. 36 pp. AAW.ECB 2151.
51. Ordo Recitandi Officii Div in! El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCLXVI. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1765. 12°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2152.
52. Ordo Reciland! Offlcii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCLX VII. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1766. 12°. 36 pp. AAW. ECB 2153.
53. Ordo Recitandi Offici! Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini Bissextili MDCCLXVIII. Ccx James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1767. 12°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2154.
54. Ordo Recilandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCLXIX. Co: James Mamiaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1768. 12°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2155.
55. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro ,4nno Domini MDCCLXX. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1769. 12°. 34 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2156.
56. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCLXXI. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1770. 12°. 34 pp. AAW. ECB 2157.
57. Ordo Reciiandi QfJlcii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno Domini MDCCLXXI. Co: Thomas Meighan. Pu: Thomas Meighan. Pr: Thomas Meighan. London. 1770. 8°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2158.
58. Onto Recilandi Officil Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini Bissextili MDCCLXYII. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1771. 12°. 34 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2159.
59. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae. Pro Anno Domini MDCCLXXIII. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1772. 12°. 44 pp. AAW. ECB 2160.
60. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini El Missae Celebrandae. Pro Anno Dornini MDCCLXXIII. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1772. 12°. 40 pp. AAW; DUC; L. ECB 2161.
262 61. Ordo Recilandi Officii Divini Er Missae Celebrandae. Pro Anno Domini MDCCLXXIV. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1773. 12°. 36 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2162.
62. Ordo Reciiandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae. Pro Anno Domini MDCCLXXV. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1774. 12°. 40 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2163.
63. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Ceiebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCLXXVI. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1775. 8°. 34 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2164.
64. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini Er Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCLXXVII. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1776. 12°. 39 pp. AAW; DUC; HEY. ECB 2165.
65. Ordo Recitandi Offici! Divini Er Missae Ceiebrandae, Pro Anno Dornini MDCCLXXVIII. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1777. 12°. 32 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2166.
66. Ordo Reciiandi Officii Divini Er Missae Ceiebrandae, Pro Anno Domini, MDCCLXXIX Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1778. 12°. 28 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2167.
67. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae. Pro Anno Domini, biss cxliii MDCCLXXX. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1779. 12°. 34 pp. AAW. ECB 2168.
68. Ordo Recitandi Officii Div/ni El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno Domini, Bissextili, MDCCLXXX. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1779. 12°. 22 pp. DUC. ECB 2169.
69. Ordo Recirandi Offlcii Divini Er Missae Celebrandae Anno Dornini MDCCLXXXI. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1780. 12°. 28 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2170.
70. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini Er Missae Celebrandae Anno Domini MDCCLXXXII. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1781. 12°. 28 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2171.
71. Ordo Recirandi Officii Divini Er Missae Celebrandae Anno Domini MDCCLXXXIII. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1782. 12°. 24 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2172.
263 72. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Anno Domini Bissextili MDCCLXXXIV. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1783. 12°. 24 pp. AAW. ECB 2173.
73. Ordo Recilandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Anno Domini MDCCLXXXV. Co: James Peter Cogh Ian. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1784. 12°. 24 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2174.
74. Ordo Recitandi Qfficii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Anno Domini MDCCLXXXVI. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1785. 12°. 36 pp. AAW. ECB 2175.
75. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini, El Missae Celebrandae Anno Domini MDCCLXXXVII. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1786. 12°. 34 pp. AAW. ECB 2176.
76. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini, El Missae Celebrandae Anno Domini Bissextili MDCCLXXXVIII. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1787. 12°. 32 pp. AAW. ECB 2177.
77. Ordo Recilandi Offlcii Divini, El Missae Celebrandae Anno Domini MDCCLXXXIX. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1788. 12°. 44 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2178.
78. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini, El Missae Celebrandae Anno Domini MDCCXC. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter oghlan. London. 1789. 12°. 34 pp. AAW. ECB 2179.
79. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Anno Domini MDCCXCI. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1790. 12°. 52 pp. AAW. ECB 2180.
80. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno Domini Bissextili MDCCXCII. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1791. 12°.38pp.AAW.ECB2I8I.
81. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno Domini, MDCCXCIII. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1792. 12°.
28 pp. HEY. ECB 2182.'
In the same year. another annual periodical was published for the first and only time: Directorium Romano-Franciscanum, juxta Ritum S. R. E. et Nova Decreta dispositum ad usum. FF. MM. A/mae Provinciae Ang/iae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCXCIII... Mandato Et Auctoritafe Superior. Co: James Peter
264 82. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno Dornini MDCCXCI V. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1793. 8°. 76 pp. AAW; DUC; HEY. ECB 2183.
83. Ordo Recilandi OfJIcii Dlviii! Et Missae Celebrandae. Pro Anno Domini MDCCXC V. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1794. 12°. 80 pp. AAW; HEY. ECB 2184.
84. Ordo Recitandi Officli Divini Et Missae Celebrandae. Anno Domini MDCCXC VI. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1795. 120. 38 pp. AAW; HEY. ECB 2185.
85. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae. Pro Anno Dornini MDCCXC VII. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1796. 12°. 100 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; HEY. ECB 2186.
86. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae. Pro Anno Domini MDCCXC VIII. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1797. 12°. 40 pp. AAW; HEY. ECB 2187.
87. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae. Pro Anno Domini MDCCXCIX Post Bissextilem Tertio. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1798. 12°. 92 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2188.
88. Ordo Recilandi Officii Divini Et Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno Domini, MDCCC. Post Bissextilem Quarto. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1799. 12°. 54 pp. AAW; HEY. ECB 2189.
89. Ordo Recitandi Officil Divini El Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno Domini MDCCCI. Post Bissextilem Quinlo. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1800. 12°. 88 pp. AAW; DUC. ECB 2190.
90. Ordo Recilandi Officii Divini Et Missae Celebrandae Pro Anno Domini MDCCCII. Post Bissextilem Sexto. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1801. 12°. 92 pp. AAW; DUC.
91. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCIII. Post Bissextilern Seplirno. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1802. 12°. 34 pp. AAW.
Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1792. 12°. 52 pp. AAW. ECB 908.
265 92. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCI V. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1803. 12°. 116 pp. AAW; DUC.
93. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini Et Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCV. Post Bissextilem Primo. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1804. 12°. 108 pp. AAW; DUC.
94. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini Et Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCC VI. Post Bissextilem Secundo. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1805. 12°. 104 pp. AAW.
95. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini Et Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCC VII. Post Bissextilem Terlio. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1806. 12°. 104 pp. AAW; DUC.
96. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini Et Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini Bissextili MDCCC VIII. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1807. 12°. 40 pp. AAW.
97. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini Et Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCC1X Post Bissextilem Primo. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1808. 12°. 128 pp. AAW; DUC.
98. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCX Post Bissextilem Secundo. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1809. 12°. 102 pp. AAW; DUC.
99. Ordo Recilandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXI. Post Bissextilem Tertio. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1810. 126. 104 pp. AAW; DUC.
100. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini Et Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini Bisse.xtili MDCCCXII. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1811. 12°. 110 pp. AAW; DUC.
101. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini Et Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXIII. (Post Bissextilem Primo). Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1812. 12°. 108 pp. AAW; DUC.
102. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini Et Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXIV. (Post Bissextilem Secundo). Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1813. 12°. 118 pp. AAW; DUC.
266 103. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCX V. (Post Bissextilem Tertio). Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1814. 12°. 114 pp. AAW; DUC.
104. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini Et Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCX VI. (Bissextili'). Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1815. 12°. 112 pp. AAW; DUC.
105. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCX VII. Post Bissextilem Primo. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London.. 1816. 12°. 110 pp. AAW; DUC.
106. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Dornini MDCCCX VIII. Post Bissexti/em Secundo. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1817. 12°. 112 pp. AAW; DUC.
107. Ordo Recilandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXIX Post Bissextilem Tertio. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1818. 12°. 122 pp. AAW; DUC.
108. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini Bissextili, 1820. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1819. 12°.
112pp. AAW; AH; DUC.
109. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXX!. Post I3issextilem Primo. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1820. 12°. 112 pp. AAW; DUC.
110. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXXII. Post Bissextilem Secundo. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1821. 12°. 134 pp. AAW; DUC.
III. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXXI!!. Post Bissextilem Tertio. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1822. 12°. 130 pp. AAW; DUC.
112. Ordo Recitandi Officli Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini Bissextili MDCCCXXI V. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1823. 12°. 128 pp. AAW; DUC.
113. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXXV, Post Bissextilein primo. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1824. 12°. 142 pp. AAW; DUC.
267 114. Ordo Recitandi quid! Div/ni El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXXVI, Post Bissexiliwn sec'undo. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown, Pr: Keating and Brown. London, 1825. 12°. 144 pp. AAW; DUC.
115. Ordo Rae/land! Offici! Div/ni El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anna DomIni MDCCCXX VII, Post Bissextilem Icrlio. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1826. 12°. 144 pp. AAW; DUC.
116. ()rdo Reel/and! Officil Divini El Missae Celehrandae, Pro Anno i',IDCC'XXVIIL Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1827. 12°. 150 pp. AAW; DUC.
I 17. Ordo Recitandi Officii Div/ni El Miae Celebrandae, Pro Anna Domini MDCCCXXIX Post Bissextile,n Pr/mo. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1828. 12°. 150 pp. AAW; DUC.
118. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Div/ni El Missae C'elebrandae, Pro Anna Domini MDCCCXXX, Post Bissextilem Secundo. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1829. 12°. 142 pp. AAW; DUC.
119. Ordo Recitandi Offici! Divin! El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXXXI, Post Bissextilem Iertio. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1830. 12°. 138 pp. AAW; DUC.
120. Ordo Recitandi Offici! Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXXXII. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1831. 12°. 140 pp. AAW; DUC.
121. Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXXXIII. Post Bissextilem Primo. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1832. 12°. 152 pp. AAW; DUC.
122. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXXXIV. Post Bissextilem Secundo. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1833. 12°. 158 pp. AAW; DUC.
123. Ordo Recitandi Officif Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXXXV. Post Bissextilem Tertio. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1834. 12°. 142 pp. AAW; DUC.
124. Ordo Recitandi Officli Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini Bissextii MDCCCXXXVI. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1835. 12°. 146 pp. AAW; DUC
268 125. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini El Missae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Do,nini It'IDCCCXXX VII. Post Bissextilem prima Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1836. 12°. 168 pp. AAW; DUC.
126. Ordo Recitandi Offlcii Divini El Missue Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXXXVIII, Post Bissextilem secundo. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1837. 120. 166 pp. AAW; DUC.
127. Ordo Recitandi Officli Divini El MLsae Celebrandae, Pro Anno Domini MDCCCXXXIX. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1838. 12°. 208 pp. AAW; DUC.
128. The Laity's Directory; or, the Order of the Church Service on Sundays and Holydays, For the Year of Our Lord MDCCLIX With Several other useful Observations. According to the Latin Directory. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1758. 12°. 28 pp. ECB 1567)
129. The Laity's Dfrectory; Or The Order Of The Church Service, On Sundays and Holy-Days For the Year of Our Lord MDCCLXIV. Being Bissextile, or Leap-Year. By Permission, and with Approbation. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: Jame Peter Coghlan. London. 1763. 12°. 28 pp. MAP. ECB 1568.
130. The Laity's Dfrectory; Or, The Order Of The Church-Service, On Sundays and Holy- Days; With Several other Useful Observations. For the Year of Our Lord MDCCLX V. Being the first after Bissextile or Leap Year.. .According to the Latin Directory. Co: James
Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmadukè. London. 1764. 12°. 48 pp. HEY. ECB 1569.
131. The Laity's Directory; Or, The Order Of The Church Service, On Sundays and Holy- Days, For the Year of our Lord, MDCCLX V. Being the First after Leap-Year. By Permission, and with Approbation. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter
Coghian. London. 1764. 12°. 30 pp. MAP. ECB 1570.
132. The Laity's Directory; Or, The Order Of The Church-Service, On Sundays and Holy- Days; With Several other Useful Observ2itions. For the year of our Lord MDCCLX VII. Being the third after Bissextile or Leap Year. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr:
James Marmaduke. London. 1766. 12°. 48 pp. HEY. ECB 1571.2
No copies of this issue have been located. The bibliographical details are based on information contained in Gil/ow, IV, p. 463.
2 On the final two pages of this edition, James Marmaduke referred to earlier issues of the Laity 's Directory produced annually by himself covering the periods 1759-1762 and 1765-1766 for which copies are not known to be extant.
269 133. The Laity's Directory; Or, The Order Of The Church Service, on Sundays and Holydays, For the Year qf our Lord, MDCCLXVIII. Being Leap-Year. By Permission, and with Approbation. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian.
London. 1767. 12°. 38 pp. L. ECB 1572.
134. The Laity's Directory; Or, The Order of the Church-Service, On Sundays and Holy- Days; With Several other Useful Observations. According to the Latin Dfrectoiy. For the Year of our Lord MDCCLXIX Being the first after Bissextile or Leap Year. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1768. 12°. 48 pp. AAW; L. ECB 1573.
135. The Laity's Directory; Or The Order Of The Church Service, On Sundays and Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord, MDCCLXX. Being the Second after Leap-Year. By Permission and with Approbation. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr:
James Peter Coghian. London. 1769. 12°. 36 pp. L. ECB 1574.
136. The Laity's Directory; or, the order of the church-service ... for the year of our Lord MDCCLXXI. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1770. 12°. 36 pp. FOL. ECB 1575.
137. The Laity's Directory; or, the order of the church-service...for the year of our Lord MDCCLXXII. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1771. 12°. 48 pp. FOL. ECB 1576.
138. The Laity's Directory; Or The Order Of The Church Service On Sundays and Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord MDCCLXXIV. Being the Second after Leap-Year. By Permission, and with Approbation. Co: James Peter.Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter
Coghian. London. 1773. 12°. 50 pp. HEY. ECB 1577.
139. The Laity's Directory; Or, The Order Of The Church-Service, On Sundays And Holy- Days; With Several other Useful Observations, According to the Latin Directory. For the Year
of our Lord, MDCCLXXIV. Being the Second after Leap-Year. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1773. 12°. 48 pp. L. ECB 1578.
140. The Laity's Directory: Or The Order Of The Church Service On Sundays and Holidays, For the year of our Lord MDCCLXXVI. Being Leap Year. With Approbation. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1775. 12°. 36 pp. HEY. ECB 1579.
141. The Laity's Directory; Or The Order Of The Church Service On Sundays and Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord MDCcLXXVJII. With Approbation. Co: James Peter Cogh Ian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1777. 12°. 38 pp. HEY. ECB 1580.
270 142. The Laity's Directory; Or The Order Of The Church Service On Sundays and Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord MDCCLXXIX With Approbation. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu:
James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1778. 12°. 56 pp. HEY. ECB 1581.
143. The Laity's Directory; Or The Order Of The Church Service On Sundays And Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord MDCCLXXX. Being Leap Year. With Approbation. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1779. 12°. 48 pp. MAP. ECB 1582.
144. The Original Laity's Directory; Or, The Order Of The Church-Service, On Sundays And Holy-Days; With Several other Useful Observations, According to the Latin Directory. For the Year of our Lord, MDCCLXXX. Being Leap-Year. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James
Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1779. 12°. 48 pp. HEY. ECB 1583.
145. The Original Laity's Directory; Or, The Order Of The Church-Service, On Sundays And Holy-Days; With Several other Useful Observations, According to the Latin Directory. For the Year of our Lord, MDCCLXXXL Being the first after Leap-Year. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1780. 12°. 48 pp. HEY. ECB 1584.
146. The Original Laity's Dfrectory; Or, The Order Of The Church-Service, On Sundays And Holy-Days; With Several other Useful Observations, According to the Latin Directory. For the Year of our Lord, MDCCLXXXII. Being the second after Leap-Year. Co: James
Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1781. 12°, 48 pp. HEY. ECB 1585.
147. The Original Laity's Directory; Or, The Order Of The Church-Service On Sundays And Holy-Days; With Several other Useful Observations, According to the Latin Directory. For the year of our Lord, MDCCLXXXIII. Being the third after Leap-Year. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1782. 12°. 48 pp. HEY. ECB 1586.
148. The Original Laity's Directory; Or, The Order Of The Church-Service On Sundays And Holy-Days; With Several other Useful Observations, According to the Latin Directory. For the year of our Lord, MDCCLXXXIV. Being Leap-Year. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1783. 12°. 48 pp. HEY. ECB 1587.
149. The Original Laity's Directory; Or, The Order Of The Church-Service On Sundays And Holy-Days; With Several other Useful Observations, According to the Latin Directory. For the Year of our Lord, MDCCLXXXV. Being the first after Leap-Year. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1784. 12°. 48 pp. HEY; L. ECB 1588.
271 150. The Laity's Directory; Or, The Order Of The Church Service On Sundays and Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord MDCCLXXXVL Being the Second after Leap Year. By Permission Of The Bishop. Co: James Peter Cogh Ian. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1785. 12°. 72 pp. DLJC; HEY. ECB 1589.
151. The Original Laity's Directory; Or, The Order Of The Church-Service On Sundays And Holy-Days; With Several other Useful Observations, According to the Latin Directory. For the Year of our Lord MDCCLXYXVI. Being the second after Leap-Year. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1785. 12°. 48 pp. L. ECB 1590.
152. The Laity's Directory; Or The Order Of The Church Service On Sundays And Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord MDCCLXXXVII. Being the Third after Leap Year. By Permission Of The Bishop. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James
Peter Coghian. London. 1786. 12°. 52 pp. MAP. ECB 1591.
153. The Original Laity's Directory; Or, The Order Of The Church-Service, On Sundays and Holidays; With Several other useful Observations, According to the Latin Directory. For the Year of our Lord, MDCCLXXXVII. Being the Third after Leap-Year. Co: James Marmaduke.
Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. London. 1786. 12°. 50 pp. HEY; L. ECB 1592.
154. The Original Laity's Directory; Or, The Order Of The Church-Service, On Sundays and Holidays; With Several other useful Observations. According to the Latin Directory. For The Year Of Our Lord, MDCCLXXXVIII. Being Leap-Year. Co: James Marmaduke. Pu: James Marmaduke. Pr: James Marmaduke. Lonaon. 1787. 12°. 48 pp. L. ECB 1593.
155. The Laity's Dfrectoiy; Or The Order Of The Church Service On Sundays and Holidays, For the Year of our Lord MDCCLXXXVIII. Being Leap Year. By Permission Of The Bishop. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1787. 12°. 64 pp. HEY. ECB 1594.
156. The Laity's Directory; In The Church Service On Sundays And Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord MDCCLXXXIX Being The First After Leap Year. To Which Is Added An Explanation of the Principal Feasts, Colours of the Church, and the Proper Psalns at Vespers and Coniplin. With An Obituary, and New Year's Gj/i. By Permission Of The Bishop. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1788. 12°.
62 pp. HEY; L; MAP. ECB 1595.
157. The Laity's Directory; For The Church Service On Sundays And Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord MDCCXC. Being The Second After Leap Year. To Which Is Added An Explanation of the Principal Feasts, Colours of the Church, the Proper Psalms at Vespers and Complin, Times for Gaining Indulgences, Obituary, and New Year's Gj/I. By Permission Of
272 The Bishop. Co: James Peter Cogh Ian. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1789. 12°. 68 pp. HEY; L; MAP. ECB 1596.
158. The Laity's Dfrectory; For The Church Service On Sundays and Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord MDCCXCI. Being the Third After Leap Year. To Which Is Added An Explanation of the Principal Feasts, Colours of the Church, the Proper Psalms at Vespers and Complin, Times for Gaining Indulgences, Obituary, and New Year's Gjfl. By Permission. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1790. 12°. 80 Pp. DUC; HEY; L. ECB 1597.
159. The Laity's Directory; For The Church Service On Sundays And Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord MDCCXCII. Being Leap Year. To Which Is Added The Colours of the Church, the Proper Psalms at Vespers and Complin, Times For Gaining Indulgences, Obituary, and New Year's Gifi... By Permission. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1791. 12°. 80 pp. DUC; HEY; L; MAP. ECB 1598.
160. The Laity's Directory; For The Church Service On Sundays And Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord MDCCXCIII. Being The First After Leap Year, To Which Is Added The Colours of the Church, the Proper Psalms at Vespers and Complin, Times For Gaining
Indulgences, Obituary, and New Year's Gifi... By Permission. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1792. 12°. 88 pp. AAW; DUC; HEY; L; MAP. ECB 1599.
161. The Laity's Directory; For The Church Service On Sundays And Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord MDCCXCI V. Being The Second After Leap Year. To Which Is Added, The Colours of the Church, the Proper Psalms at Vespers and Complin, Times For Gaining Indulgences, Obituary, and New Year's Gj/1, &c... By Permission. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1793. 12°. 84 pp. AAW; DUC; HEY; L. ECB 1600.
162. The Laity's Dfrectory; For The Church Service On Sundays And Holy Days, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCXC V. Being The Third After Leap Year. To Which Is Added, The Colours of the Church, the Proper Psalms at Vespers and Complin, Times For Gaining Indulgences, Obituary, and New Year's Gjfi, &c.. . By Permission. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1794. 12°. 92 pp. AAW; DUC; L. ECB 1601.
163. The Laity's Directory; For The Church Service On Sundays And Holy Days, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCXC VI. Being Leap Year. To Which Is Added The Colours of the Church, the Proper Psalms at Vespers and Complin, Times For Gaining Indulgences,
273 Obiluary, and New Year's Gjfl, &c... By Permission, Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1795. 120. 108 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; HEY; L. ECB 1602.
164. The Laity's Directory; For The Church Service On Sundays and Holy Days, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCXC VII. Being The First After Leap Year. To Which Is Added, The Colours of the Church, the Proper Psalms at Vespers and Complin, Times For Gaining Indulgences, Obituary, and New Year's Gjfl, &c... By Permission. Co: James Peter Coghian. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1796. 12°. 104 pp. AAW; DUC; HEY; L. ECB 1603.
I65. The Laity's Directory; For The Church Service On Sundays And Holy Days, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCXC VIII. Being The Second After Leap Year. To Which Is Added, The Colours of the Church, the Proper Psalms at Vespers and Complin, Times For Gaining Indulgences, Obituary, and New Year's Gfl, &c... By Permission. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghlan. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1797. 12°. 96 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; HEY; L. ECB 1604.
166. The Laity's Directory; For The Church Service On Sundays And Holy Days, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCXCIX. Being The Third After Leap Year. To Which Is Addea The Colours of the Church, the Proper Psalms at Vespers and Complin, Times For Gaining Indulgences, Obituary, and New Year's .GU1, &c... By Permission. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghian. London. 1798. 12°. 102 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; HEY; L. ECB 1605.
167. The Laity's Directory For The Church Service On Sundays And Holy Days, For the Year of our Lord MDCCC. Being The Fourth After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: James Peter Coghlan. Pu: James Peter Coghian. Pr: James Peter Coghlan. London. 1799. 12°. 106 pp. AAW; DUC; HEY; L. ECB 1606.
168. The Laity's Directory For The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCI. Being The Fjflh After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1800. 12°. 96 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L. ECB 1607.
169. The Laity's Directory For The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCIL Being The Sixth After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1801. 12°. 98 pp. AAW; Al-I; DUC; L.
170. The Laity's Directory For The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCIII. Being The Seventh After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu:
274 Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1802. 12°. 90 pp. AAW; DUC; L.
171. The Laity 's Directory For The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCI V. Being Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1803. 12°. 114 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
172. The Laity's Directory For The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCC V. Being The First After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1804. 12°. 114 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
173. The Laity's Dfrectory For The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCC VI. Being The Second After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keatiig, Brown and Keating. London. 1805. 12°. 110 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
174. The Laity's Directory For The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCC VII. Being The Third After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1806. 12°. 110 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
175. The Laity's Directory For The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCC VIII. Being Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1807. 12°. 106 pp. DUC; HEY; L.
176. The Laity's Dfrectory For The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCIX Being The First After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1808. 12°. 126 pp. AAW; DUC; L.
177. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCX Being The Second After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating; Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1809. 12°. 106 pp. AAW; DUC; L.
178. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXI. Being The Third After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating; Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1810. 12°. 110 pp. AAW; DUC; L.
275 179. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXII. Being Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keatirig, Brown and Keating; Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1811. 12°. 114 pp. AAW; DUC; L.
180. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXIII. Being The First After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating; Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1812. 12°. 96 pp. AAW; DUC; L.
181. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXIV. Being The First After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating; Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1813. 12°. 124 pp. AAW; DUC; L.
182. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCX V. Being The Third After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating; Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1814. 12°. 112 pp. AAW; Al-I; DUC; L.
183. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXVI. Being Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating; Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1815. 12°. 122 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
184. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCX VII. Being The First After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating; Pr: Keating, Brown and Keating. London. 1816. 12°. 122 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
185. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCX VIII. Being The Second After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1817. 12°. 114 pp. AAW; DUC; L.
186. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXIX Being the Third After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1818. 12°. 128 pp. AAW; AH; L.
187. The Laity's Dfrectory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXX. Being Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1819. 12°. 122 pp. AAW; L.
276 188. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXI. Being The First After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1820. 12°. 114 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
189. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXII. Being The Second After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1821. 12°. 136 pp. AAW; L.
190. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXIII. Being The Third After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1822. 12°. 126 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
191. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXII V. Being Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1823. 12°. 126 pp. AH; HEY; L.
192. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXV. Being The First After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1824. 12°. 142 pp. AAW; L.
193. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For the Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXIVI. Being The Second After Leap Year... By Permission. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1825. 12°. 170 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
194. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXX VII. Being The Third After Leap Year. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1826. 12°. 146 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
195. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXX V/IL Being Leap Year. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1827. 12°. 150 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
196. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXIX. Being The First After Leap Year. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1828. 12°. 146 pp. AH; DUC; HEY; L.
197. The Laity's Dfrectory To The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXX Being The Second After Leap Year. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1829. 12°. 136 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
198. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXIX!. Being The Third After Leap Year. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1830. 12°. 134 pp. AH; HEY; L.
277 199. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXXII. Being Leap Year. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1831. 12°. 136 pp. AH; DUC; HEY; L.
200. The Laity's Dfreclory To The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXXIII. Being The First After Leap Year. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1832. 12°. 140 pp. AH; DUC; HEY; L.
201. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXXIV. Being The Second After Leap Year. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and
Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1833. 12°. 148 pp. AU; DUC; HEY; L.
202. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXXV. Being The Third After Leap Year. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1834. 12°. 138 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
203. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXX VI. Being Leap Year. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1835. 12°. 146 pp. AH; DUC; HEY; L.
204. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXXVII. Being The First After Leap Year. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown; Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1836. 12°. 162 pp. AH; DUC; HEY; L.
205. The Laity's Directory To The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXXVIII. Being The Second After Leap Year. Co:Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1837. 12°. 158 pp. AAW; AH; DUC; L.
206. The Laity's Dfrectory To The Church Service, For The Year Of Our Lord MDCCCXXXIX Being The Third After Leap Year. Co: Keating and Brown. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 1838. 12°. 198 pp. AH; DUC; HEY; L.
207. The Catholic Magazine and Reflector. Ed: William Hyacinth Houghton. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: T. Schofield. London. 4°. Monthly. 2 vols. (i) January-June 1801. 388 pp. (ii) July-December 1801. 364 pp. AU; DUC; OSC.
208. The Catholic Magazine. Ed: Baldwin Janson. Pu: Baldwin Janson. Pr: Baldwin Janson [June, August and November 1812]; G. Martin [September-October and December 1812].
London. 4°. Monthly. I vol. June and August-December 1812. 248 pp. 0. BUCOP, I, p. 515.
209. The Catholic Magazine and Review. Ed: Charles Butler [assisted by Joseph Nightingale]. Pu: Sherwood, Neely and Jones. Pr: G. Martin [January and March-April 18131; Baldwin
'278 Janson [February 1813]. London. 4°. Monthly. I vol. January-April 1813. 184 pp. AH; OSC. BUCOP, I, p.515.
2 10. The Orthodox Journal and Catholic Monthly Intelligencer. First series. Ed: William Eusebius Andrews. Pu: William EusebiQs Andrews. Pr: William Eusebius Andrews. London.
4°. Monthly. 8 vols. (i) June-December 1813. 316 pp. (ii) January-December 1814. 484 pp.
(iii) January-December 1815. 484 pp. (iv) January-December 1816. 492 pp. (v) January- December 1817. 488 pp. (vi) January-December 1818. 476 pp. (vii) January-December 1819.
480 pp. (viii) January-December 1820. 484 pp. AH; DUC. BUCOP, 111, p. 464.
211. The Caiholicon: Or, The Christian Philosopher; A Roman Catholic Magazine. First series. Ed: George Keating. Pu: Keating, Brown and Keating. Pr: Keating, Brown and
Keating.' London. 4°. Monthly. 5 vols. (i) July-December 1815. 240 pp.2 (ii) January-June
1816. 264 pp. (iii) July-December 1816. 266 pp. (iv) January-June 1817. 296 pp. (v) July-
December 1817. 296 pp. Al-I; DUC. BUCOP, 1, p. 517.
212. The Catholicon: Or, The Christian Philosopher; A Roman Catholic Magazine. Second Series. Ed: George Keating. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 4°.
Monthly. I vol. April-December 1818. 404 pp.3 AH. BUCOP, 1, p. 517.
213. The Catholic Gentleman's Magazine. Ed: James Willson. Pu: James Willson. Pr: James
Willson. London. 4°. Monthly. 2 vols. (I) February-December 1818. 764 pp. (ii) January-April
1819. 160 pp. DUC; OSC. BUCOP, I, p. 515.
214. The Catholic Vindicator, A Weekly Paper, In Reply To "The Protestant". Ed: William Eusebius Andrews. Pu: William Eusebius Andrews. Pr: William Eusebius Andrews. London.
4°. Weekly. I vol. 5 December 1818-4 December 1819. 416 pp. Al-I; DUC. BUCOP, I, p. 517.
215. The Catholic Advocate of Civil and Religious Liberty. Ed: William Eusebius Andrews. Pu: William Eusebius Andrews. Pr: William Eusebius Andrews. London. Broadsheet. Weekly.
I vol. 3 December 1820-22 July 1821. 272 pp. NLC. BUCOP, I, p. 514.
216. The Catholic Miscellany and Monthly Repository of Information. Ed: Ambrose Cuddon [January 1822 and July 1823-April 1828]; William Eusebius Andrews [February 1822-July 1823]; Thomas Michael McDonnell [May 1828-May 1830]. Pu: Ambrose Cuddon [January 1822-May 1826]; Sherwood and Co. [June 1826-June 1828]; J. Robins and Co. [July 1828-
After Patrick Keating's death on 5 October 1816, the firm became known as Keating and Brown.
2 The numbers in this volume each came out under the title of The Publicist: Or, The Christian Philosopher; A Roman Catholic Magazine.
See p. 404: 'The first series commenced in June [sic] 1815 and ended in March 1818, including a supplement to 1816, an appendix and two supplements to 1817 which were published instead of regular numbers for January and March following in February [1818] there was no publication',
279 May 1830]. Pr: Ambrose Cuddon [January 1822-May 1826]; Coe and Moore [June 1826-May 40 1830?]. London. Monthly. 12 vols. (I) January-December 1822. 572 PP. (ii) January- December 1823. 560 pp. (iii) January-December 1824. 604 pp. (iv) January-December 1825. 570 pp. (v) January-June 1826. 448 pp. (vi) July-December 1826. 448 pp. (vii) January-June 1827. 464 pp. (viii) July-December 1827. 360 pp. (ix) January-June 1828. 424 pp. (x) July- December 1828. 380 pp. (xi) January-December 1829. 618 pp. (xii) January-May 1830. 228 pp. AH; DUC. BUCOP, I, p. 515.
217. The Orthodox Journal and Catholic Monthly Intelligencer. Second series. Ed: William Eusebius Andrews. Pu: William Eusebius Andrews. Pr: William Eusebius Andrews. London.
4°. Monthly. 2 vols. (I) January-December 1823. 500 pp. (ii) January-December 1824. 492 pp. AH; DUC. BUCOP, Ill, p. 464.
218. The Catholic Spectator and Monitor; Or Catholicon. Ed. George Keating. Pu: Keating and Brown. Pr: Keating and Brown. London. 4°. Monthly. 4 vols. (i) February-December
1823. 412 pp.1 (ii) January-December 1824. 504 pp. (iii) January-December 1825. 504 pp. (iv) January-December 1826. 500 pp. DUC. BUCOP, I, p. 517.
219. Truthteller. Ed: William Eusebius Andrews. Pu: William Eusebius Andrews. Pr: William Eusebius Andrews. London. Broadsheet. Weekly. I vol. 25 September 1824-17 September
1825. 416 pp. NLC. BUCOP, IV, p. 353.
220. The Truthteller; A Weekly Pamphlet. Ed: William Eusebius Andrews. Pu: William Eusebius Andrews. Pr: William Eusebius Andrews. London. 4°. Fortnightly and weekly. 2 14 vols. (I) I October-31 December 1825. 448 pp. (ii) 7 January-i April i26. 46 pp. (ii
April-I July 1826. 460 pp. (iv) 8 July-30 September 1826. 464 pp. (v) 7 October-30 December 1826. 468 pp. (vi) 6 January-31 March 1827. 460 pp. (vii) 7 April-30 June 1827. 468 pp. (viii) 7 July-29 September 1827. 464 pp. (ix) 6 October-29 December 1827. 464 pp. (x) 5 January- 29 March 1828. 464 pp. (xi) 5 April-28 June 1828. 468 pp. (xii) 5 July-27 September 1828. 468 pp. (xiii) 4 October-27 December 1828. 462 pp. (xiv) 3 January-25 April 1829. 604 pp. Al-I; DUC. BUCOP, IV, p. 353.
221. The Catholic Journal. Ed: Michael Joseph Quin. Pu: Keating and Brown [March-October 1828]; G. Henderson [October 1828-March 1829]. Pr: Bradbury and Dent [March-October 1828]; 5. Mills [October 1828-March 1829]. London. 4°, folio and broadsheet. Weekly. 3 vols. (i) I March-24 May 1828. 312 pp. (ii) 31 May-28 December 1828. 498 pp. (iii) 4 January-15 March 1829.88 pp. DUC;NLC; OSC. BUCOP, 1, p.515.
The first volume was issued under the expanded title of The Catholic Spectator, Selector and Monitor; Or Catholicon.
2 The first three numbers of the pamphlet appeared fortnightly. It became a weekly publication with the issue that was released on 5 November 1825.
280 222. The Orthodox Journal and Catholic Monthly Intelligencer. Third series. Ed: William Eusebius Andrews. Pu: William Eusebius Andrews. Pr: William Eusebius Andrews. London. 4o• Monthly. 2 vols. (i) May-December 1829. (ii) January-December 1830. 476 pp. AH; DUC.
BUCOP, Ill, p. 464.
223. The Catholic Magazine and Review. Ed: Thomas Michael McDonnell; John Kirk [February 1831-May 1835]; John Gascoyne [February 1831-March 1832]; Francis Martyn [February 1831-March 1832]; Edward Peach [February 1831-June 18331. Pu: R.P. Stone. Pr:
R.P. Stone. Birmingham. 4°. Monthly. 6 vols. (i) February 1831-January 1832. 786 pp. (ii) February-December 1832. 820 pp. (iii) January-July 1833. 573 pp. (iv) August-December 1833. 416 pp. (v) January-December 1834. 1006 pp. (vi) January-December 1835. 931 pp. Al-I; DUC. BUCOP, I, p. 515.
224. Andrews' Penny Orthodox Journal of Entertaining Christian Knowledge or Andrews' Weekly Orthodox Journal of Entertaining Christian Knowledge.' Ed: William Eusebius Andrews. Pu: William Eusebius Andrëws. Pr: William Eusebius Andrews. London. 4°.
Weekly. 4 vols. (i) 8 September 1832-31 August 1833. 412 pp. (ii) 7 September 1833-28 June 1834. 476 pp. (iii) 5 July-27 December 1834. 396 pp. (iv) 3 January-27 June 1835. 364 pp. AH; DUC. BUCOP, I, p. 140.
225. The London and Dublin Orthodox Journal of Useful Knowledge. Ed: William Eusebius Andrews [July 1835-April 1837]; Peter Paul Andrews [April 1837-December 1845]. Pu: William Eusebius Andrews [July 1835-April 1837]; P. and M. Andrews [April 1837- December 1845]. Pr: William Eusebius Andrews [July 1835-April 1837]; P. and M. Andrews [April 1837-December 1845]. London. 4°. Weekly and monthly. 21 vols. (i) 4 July-26
December 1835. 412 pp. (ii) 2 January-25 June 1836. 412 pp. (iii) 2 July-31 December 1836. 420 pp. (iv) 7 January-24 June 1837. 396 pp. (v) I July-30 December 1837. 428 pp. (vi) 6 January-30 June 1838. 412 pp. (vii) 7 July-29 December 1838. 412 pp. (viii) 5 January-29 June 1839. 412 pp. (ix) 6 July-28 December 1839.428 pp.2 (x) 4 January-27 June 1840. 412 pp. (xi) 4 July-26 December 1840. 412 pp. (xii) 2 January-26 June 1841. 414 pp. (xiii) 3 July- 25 December 1841. 406 pp. (xiv) I January-25 June 1842. 416 pp. (xv) 2 July-31 December 1842. 424 pp. (xvi) 7 January-24 June 1843. 400 pp. (xvii) I July-30 December 1843. 424 pp. (xviii) 6 January-29 June 1844. 412 pp. (xix) 6 July-28 December 1844. 414 pp. (xx) 4 January-28 June 1845. 416 pp. (xxi) 5 July-27 September; November and December 1845. 300 pp.3 AH; DUC. BUCOP, Ill, p. 88.
The work adopted the latter title on 8 March 1834.
2 As from 10 August 1839, the paper became known as The London and Dublin Orthodox Journal of Useful Knowledge and Catholic Intelligencer.
After the edition for 27 September 1845. was published, two monthly numbers of the periodical appeared at the end of the year under the title of The Orthodox Journal of Useful Knowledge.
281 226. The Catholicon. Ed: Thomas Michael McDonnell. Pu: M. Smith. Pr: M. Smith. Birmingham. 4°. Monthly. I vol. January-July 1836 and [May 1837]. 720 pp. AH; DUC.
BUCOP, I, P. 517.
227. The Dublin Review. Ed: Michael Joseph Quin [May-October 1836]; Mark Aloysius Tierney [November-December 1836]; James Smith [January-October 1837]; Henry Ridgard Bagshawe [October 1837-April 1863]. Pu: William Spooner [May 1836-October 1837]; Charles Dolman [October 1 837-October 1844]; Thomas Richardson [November 1844-April 1863]. Pr: Charles Richards [May 1836-October 1844]; Thomas Richardson [November 1844- April 1 863]. London. 4°. Quarterly. 17 vols [between May 1836 and December 1844]. (i) May
and July 1836. 667 pp. (ii) December 1836 and April 1837. 620 Pp. (iii) July and October 1837. 564 pp. (iv) January and April 1838. 560 pp. (v) July and October 1838. 584 pp. (vi) January and May 1839. 560 pp. (vii) August and November 1839. 547 pp. (viii) February and May 1840. 572 pp. (ix) August and November 1840. 571 pp. (x) February and May 1841. 548
pp. (xi) August and November 1841. 568 pp. (xii) February and May 1842. 565 pp. (xiii) August and November 1842. 560 pp. (xiv) February and May 1843. 560 pp. (xv) August and December 1843. 558 pp. (xvi) March and June 1844. 573 pp. (xvii) September and December 1844. 568 pp. AH; DUC; DUL; NCL. BUCOP, II, pp. 7 1-72.
228. The Tablet. 1 Ed: Frederick Lucas [May 1840-October 1855]. Pu: Thomas Walton [May 1840-May 1841]; George Dismore [from May 1841]. Pr: Charles Davies [May 1840-May 1841]; John Ager [May 1841-February 1842]; Robert Palmer [February 1842-June 1843]; George Dismore [from June 1843]. London. Broadsheet. Weekly. 5 vols [between May 1840
and December 1844]. (i) 16 May-26 December 1840. 536 pp. (ii) 2 January-25 December 1841. 840 pp. (iii) I January-31 December 1842. 864 pp. (iv) 7 January-30 December 1843. 832 pp. (v) 6 January-28 December 1844. 832 pp. AH; DUC. BUCOP, IV, p.279 and p. 353.
Between 26 February and 31 December 1842, the newspaper was published as The True Tablet. No copies of the other version of the Tablet, produced during this period by John Cox and Michael Joseph Quin, have been found.
282 Bibliography
Manuscript Sources
Archives of the Archdiocese of Westminster, London: A72, Bramston Papers; A53, Douglass Papers; Bishop Douglass Diaries; A58, A67-68, Poynter Papers; Dublin Review Papers; St Edmund's College Papers, 7/4; Stanfield Papers, 20/2/4; 2 1/3; Wiseman Papers, WI /6/1; W3/ 16/4.
Archivum Britannicum Societatis lesu [Jesuit Archives], London: SM/7, Kirk Letters, 1815-1831; Lingard Correspondence; Letters of Dr John Mimer, 1790-1826.
Birmingham Archdiocesan Archives: A, B, C and R series of letters; Al2l8, 'Letter from Dr Mimer, on the Present State of Catholic Affairs' [April 1819]; R2l2, John Mimer, 'A Pastoral Charge, Addressed to the Catholic Clergy of the Midland District. Part II. On the Doctrine of the Catholic Church' [30 March 1813]; SC/C2 I, Frederick Charles Husenbeth, 'Memoirs of Parkers: that is Persons Educated at Sedgley Park, or Connected with it by residence in that Establishment, From its First Foundation, in 1763' 2 ms. vols (1867-1868).
Bodleian Library, Oxford: Mss. Rawlinson, A173 if. 72-74; A328 f. 145; D18, f. 44 and f. 62; Mss.Wood,F41,f. ll8andf. 137.
British Library, London: Add. Mss. 25,127, Charles Butler Letterbook, 1808-1809; Add. Mss. 25,128, Charles Butler Letterbook, 1812; Add. Mss. 25,129, Charles Butler Letterbook, 1817-1818.
Cambridge University Library: Add. 9418, Lingard Papers; Add. 9419, Tierney Papers.
Diocesan Archives of East Anglia, Norwich: XPDI7/1-3, Foley-l-Iusenbeth Correspondence.
Irish Jesuit Archives, Dublin: N8, Russell Papers; Nl5, Letters Relating to Daniel O'Connell, 1839-1846.
Lancashire Record Office, Preston: BU 14, Coghlan Papers.
283 Leeds Diocesan Archives: Briggs Papers; Smith Papers.
Northampton Diocesan Archives: Pre A 1/2, Letters from John Mimer to Thomas Michael McDonnell, and correspondence between William Foley, Frederick Charles Husenbeth and John Kirk concerning the Catholic Magazine and Review.
Oscott College, Birmingham: Uncatalogued letters from John Bew to George Crook.
Public Record Office, Kew: Privy Council Records 2/65/336; 2/68/477; 2/68/496; 2/68/512-513; 2/69/665; State Papers 25/32/84; 25/39/10; 25/63/21; 36/77/51; 36/93/162-165; 36/93/170-172; 44/81/4l9;44/82/161-162;44/1l8/345.
Scottish Catholic Archives, Edinburgh: BL3, Hay Papers; BL6/l 1/12-1 3, Letters from John Kirk.
Ushaw College, Durham: Lingard Papers; Newsham Papers; Presidents' Archive; Walker Papers; Wiseman Papers; Index to Ushaw College Diary, 1808-1863; Nicholas Wiseman, 'Remarks on the New Version of the Gospels by a Catholic', undated ms.
English Catholic Serial Publications
See above, pp. 255-282.
General Serial Publications
Aris 's Birmingham Gazette.
Athenaeum.
Birmingham Advertizer.
Birmingham Journal.
British Critic.
British Magazine.
Captain Rock in London; Or, The Chieftain's Gazette.
Don2estick Intelligence; or, News both from City and Countiy.
Dublin Evening Post.
284 Dublin Weekly Register.
Edinburgh Catholic Magazine.
The English Currant.
Evangelical Magazine and Missionary Chronicle.
Gentleman 's Magazine.
Methodist Magazine.
Morning Chronicle.
Nation.
Protestant (Domestick) Intelligence.
Protestant Journal.
Sheffield Mercury.
Spectator.
Times.
True Protestant Mercury.
Weekly Pacquet ofAdvice from Rome: oi', the History of Popery.
Wolverhampton Chronicle.
Unpublished Dissertations and Essays
Acheson, Susan J., 'Catholic Journalism in Victorian Catholic Society 1830-1870 With Special Reference to the Tablet', M.Litt. Thesis (University of Oxford, 1981).
Arblaster, Paul, 'Current-Affairs Publishing in the l-labsburg Netherlands 1620-1660 in Comparative European Perspective', D.Phil. Thesis (University of Oxford, 1999).
Champ, Judith F., 'Assimilation and Separation: The Catholic Revival in Birmingham, c. 1650- 1850', Ph.D. Thesis (University of Birmingham, 1985).
Duffy, Eamon, 'Joseph Berington and the English Catholic Cisalpine Movement, 1772-1 803', Ph.D. Thesis (University of Cambridge, 1973).
Phillips, Peter, 'A New Version of the Four Gospels' (2002).
Walsh, Leo J., 'William G. Ward and the Dublin Review', Ph.D. Thesis (University of Columbia, 1962).
Published Books
Addison, Joseph, Remarks on Several Parts of Italy, &c. In the Years 1701, 1702, 1703 (London, 2nd edition, 1712).
Allanson, Athanasius, Biography of the English Benedictines (Ampleforth, 1999).
285 Altholz, Josef L., The Liberal Catholic Movement in England: The Rambler and its Contributors, 1848-1864 (London, 1962).
Altholz, Josef L., The Religious Press in Britain, 1760-1900 (New York, 1989).
Altick, Richard D., The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public 1800-1900 (Chicago, 1957).
An Account of the Proceedings Against Nat. Thompson, Mr Farwell, & Mr Paine, At The Councel-Board, On Wednesday, April the Ffflh, 1682. For their Endeavouring to Shamm off the Murt her of Sir Edmund Bury-Godfrey, who were all Three Committed by that Honourable Board, to Newgate, for the same (London, 1682).
Andrews, William Eusebius, A Critical and Historical Review of Fox's Book of Martyrs, Shewing the Inaccuracies, Falsehoods, and Misrepresentations in that Work of Deception 3 vols (London, 1824-1826).
Anstruther, Godfrey, The Seminary Priests: A Dictionary of the Secular Clergy of England and Wales /558-18504 vols (Ware, Durham and Great Wakering, 1968-1977).
Aspinall, Arthur, Politics and the Press c. 1780-1850 (London, 1949).
At the General Sessions of the Peace, and Gaol Delivery, held Jbr the City of London, on Wednesday the 31" of August, at Justice-Hall in the Old-Bayly, in the three and thirtieth year of our Sovereign Lord, Charles, &c. (London, 1681).
Aveling, J.C.H., The Handle and the Axe: The Catholic Recusants in England from ReJbrmation to Emancipation (London 1976).
The Beacon Flameing With a Non Obstante: Or a Just (fIcation of The Firing of the Beacon, By Way of Animadversion Upon the Book entituled The Beacons Quenched, Subscribed by Col. Pride, &c. (London, 1652).
A Beacon Set On Fire: Or The Humble Information of Certain Stationers, Citizens of London, to the Parliament and Commonwealth of England (London, 1652).
The Beacons Quenched (London, 1652).
Bell, Alexander (ed.), Peeps into the Past: being passages from the diary of Tho,nas Asline Ward (London, 1909).
Bellenger, Dominic Aidan, The French Exiled Clergy in the British Isles after 1789 (Bath, 1986).
Bennett, H.S., English Books and Readers 1558 to 1603: Being A Study In The History of The Book Trade In The Reign of Elizabeth / ( Cambridge, 1965).
Berington, Joseph, An Examination of Events Termed Miraculous, as Reported in Letters from Italy (London, 1796).
Berington, Joseph, A Letter to the Right Reverend John Douglass, Vicar Apostolic of the London District (London, 1797).
Berington, Joseph, The Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani; Giving An Account of His Agency in England, in the Years 1634, 1635, /636 (Birmingham, 1793).
Berington, Joseph, Reflections, Addressed to the Rev. Jo/in Hawkins. To Which is Added, An Exposition of Roman Catholic Principles, in Reference to God and the Country (Birmingham, 1785).
286 Berington, Joseph, The Slate and Behaviour of English Catholics, From the Reformation to the Year 1780. With a View of their Present Number, Wealth, Character, &c. (London, 1780).
Berington, Joseph and Kirk, John, The Faith of Catholics, Confirmed By Scripture, and Attested By the Fathers of the Five First Centuries of the Church (London, 1813).
Bliss, Philip (ed.), Athenae Oxonienses, An Exact History ofAll the Writers and Bishops Who Have Had Their Education in the University of Oxford To Which are Added the Fasti, or Annals of the Said University. By Anthony a Wood, M.A. of Merton College 4 vols (London, 18 13-1820).
Blom, F., Blom, J., Korsten, F. and Scott, 0. (eds.), English Catholic Books 1701-1800: A Bibliography (Hants., 1996).
Blom, J.M., The Post-Tridentine English Primer (London, 1982).
Blount, Thomas, Booker Rebuk 'd For His Telescopium Uranicum Or Ephemeris: Wherein, from the Sun's Ingress into the Cardinal Points; the Eclipses of the two great Luminaries; the Conjunction & Configuration of the Planets, and other Celestial Appendices, 'tis more then probably conjectured, That John hookers Almanack 1665. is very Erroneous, to say no more (London, 1665).
Blount, Thomas, Boscobel: Or, The History Of His Sacred Majesties Most miraculous Preservation After the Battle of Worcester, 3 Sept. 1651 (London, 1660).
Blount, Thomas, A Catalogue of the Lords, Knights and Gentlemen (of the Cathalick Religion) that were Slain in the late Warr, in Defence of their King and Countrey. As also of those whose Estates were sold by the Rump for that Cause (London, 1660).
Bongaerts, Theo (ed.), The Correspondence of Thomas Blount (1618-1679) A Recus ant Antiquary (Amsterdam, 1978).
Bossy, John, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 (London, 1975).
Bowler, Dom Hugh (ed.), London Sessions Records 1605-1685 (London, 1934).
Brock, Michael, The Great Reform Act (London, 1973).
Bryant, Arthur, Samuel Pepys: The Years of Peril (Cambridge, 1936).
Burton, Edwin H., The L?fe and Times of Bishop Challoner (1691-1 781) 2 vols (London, 1909).
Butler, Charles, Historical Memoirs Respecting the English, Irish, and Scottish Catholics, From the Reformation, to the Present Time 2 vols (London, 1819).
Butler, Dom Cuthbert, The Vatican Council: The Story Told From Inside In Bishop Ullathorne 's Letters 2 vols (London, 1936).
Calendar of State Papers Domestic.
Capp, Bernard, Astrology and the Popular Press: English Almanacs 1500-1800 (London, 1979).
Catholic Record Society, Miscellanea /V(London, 1907).
Chadwick, Owen, The Spirit of the Oxford Movement (Cambridge, 1990).
287 Chadwick, Owen, The Victorian Church 2 vols (London, 1966-1970).
Chinnici, Joseph P., The English Catholic Enlightenment: John Lingard and the Cisalpine Movement, 1780-1850 (Shepherdstown, West Virginia, 1980).
Church, R.W., The Oxford Movement: Twelve Years 1833-1845 (London, 1891).
Clancy, Thomas H., English Catholic Boo/cs 1641-1700: A Bibliography: Revised Edition (London, 1996).
Clark, Andrew (ed.), The L?fe and Times of Anthony Wood, antiquary, of Oxford, 1632-1695, described by Himself 3 vols (Oxford, 1891-1894).
Clegg, Cyndia Susan, Press Censorship in England (Cambridge, 1997).
Couve de Murville, M.N.L., John Milner (Birmingham, 1986).
Coward, Barry, The Stuart Age: England, 1603-1714 (London, 1994).
Crehan, Joseph, Father Thurston (London, 1952).
Cusack, Mary Frances, The Liberator: His L?fe and Times 2 vols (Dublin, 1872).
Davis, Richard, The Young Ireland Movement (Dublin, 1988).
De Beer, E.S. (ed.), The Diary of John Evelyn 6 vols (Oxford, 1955).
Dessain, Charles Stephen; Gornall, Th9mas; Kelly, Edward E.; Ker, Ian; Tracey, Gerard (eds.), The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman 27 vols (London and Oxford, 196 1- 1984).
Dodd, Charles, The Church History of England, From the Year 1500, to the Year 1688 3 vols (Brussels, 1737-1742).
Duffy, Charles Gavan, Young Ireland (London, 1880).
Eustace, John Chetwode, A Tour Through Italy, Exhibiting a View of its Scenery, its Antiquities, and its Monuments; Particularly as They are Objects of Classical Interest and Elucidation: With an Account of the Present State of its Cities and Towns; and Occasional Observations on the Recent Spoliations of the French 2 vols (London, 1813).
Fagan, William, The L?fe and Times of Daniel O'Connell 2 vols (Cork, 1848).
Farwell, John, A Letter to Miles Prance, In Relation to the Murther of Sir Edmond-buiy Godfrey (London, 1682).
Firth, C.H. and Rait, R.S., (eds.) Acts aiid Ordinances of the Interregnum 1642-1660 3 vols (London, 1911).
Fitzgerald-Lombard, Charles, English and Welsh Priests 1801-1914 (Bath, 1993).
Fitzpatrick, W.J. (ed.), Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell The Liberator 2 vols (London, 1888).
Fletcher, John, Reflections on the Spirit, &c. &c. of Religious Controversy (London, 1804).
Fletcher, John, Thoughts on the Rights and Prerogatives, of the Church, and State; With Some Observations Upon the Question of Catholic Securities (London, 1823).
288 Flick, Carlos, The Birmingham Political Union and the Movements for Reform in Britain, 1830-1839 (Folkestone, 1978).
Foley, B.C., Some People of the Penal Times (Chiefly 1688-1 791) (Lancaster, 1991).
Foye, Martin Wilson, Three Letters Addressed to the Rev. TM. McDonnell, Roman Catholic Missionary of Saint Peter's Chapel, Birmingham; On His Argument From the Fathers, in Support of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation (Birmingham, 1830).
Frank, Joseph, The Beginnings of the English Newspaper 1620-1660 (Cambridge, Mass., 1961).
Gandoiphy, Peter, Liturgy, or a Book of Common Prayers, and Adminisiration of Sacraments, With Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, For the use of all Christians in the United Kingdon of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1812).
Gee, Edward, The Catalogue Of all the Discourse Published Against Popery, During the Reign of King James II, By the Methbers of the Church of England, And by the Non- conformists. With the Names of the Authors of them (London, 1689).
Gilley, Sheridan, Newman and His Age (London, 1990).
Gillow, Joseph, The Haydock Papers: A Glimpse Into English Catholic Ljfe Under the Shade of Persecution and in the Dawn of Freedom (London, 1888).
Gillow, Joseph, A Literary and Biographical History, or Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics: From the Breach with Rome, in 1534, to the Present Time 5 vols (London, 1885-1903).
Gooch, Leo (ed.), The Revival of English Catholicism: The Banister-Rutter Correspondence 1777-1807 (Wigan, 1995).
Gwynn, Denis, Lord Shrewsbury, Pugin and the Catholic Revival (London, 1946).
1-laile, Martin and Bonney, Edwin, Ljfe and Letters of John Lingard, 1771-1851 (London, 1911).
Haydon, Cohn, Anti-Catholicism in Eighteenth-Century England, c. 1714-80: A Political and Social Study (Manchester, 1993).
Hempton, David, Methodism and Politics in British Society, 1750-1850 (London, 1984).
Hilton, J.A. (ed.), A Catholic of the Enlightenment: Essays on Lingard's Work and Times (Wigan, 1999).
Historical Manuscripts Commission, Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Ornionde. K P. Preserved at Kilkenny Castle. New Series, VoL VI (London, 1911).
Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eleventh Report, Appendix, Part II: The Manuscripts of the House of Lords. 1678-1688 (London, 1887).
Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. Part L Report and Appendix (London, 1874).
Historical Manuscripts Commission, Ninth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. Part II. Appendix and Index (London, 1884).
Houghton, Walter E. (ed.), The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals 1824-1900 5 vols (London, 1966-1988).
289 Husenbeth, Frederick Charles, The Life of the Right Rev. John Mimer D.D. (Dublin, 1862).
Husenbeth, Frederick Charles, The Ljfe of the Right Reverend Monsignor Weedall, D.D. (London, 1860).
Husenbeth, Frederick Charles, Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Very Rev. Thomas Michael McDonnell, Canon Theologian of the Cathedral Chapter of CIflon; at St. Mary's Chapel, Bath, on the 29" of October, 1869 (London, 1869).
Janson, Baldwin, A Grammar of the Dutch Language; Wherein the Rules are laid down in so Easy and Conspicuous a Manner, that the most moderate Capacity may attain it in a very Short Tune, without the Assistance of a Master (London, 1792).
Janson, Baldwin, A Practical Grammar of the Dutch Language, with Exercises to Each Rule; To which are Added Commercial Letters and Dialogues, Both Dutch and English, With an introduction, By which the Dutch and Germans may Acquire a Knowledge of the English Language (London, 1803).
Jones, Edwin, John Lingard and the Pursuit of Historical Truth (Brighton, 2001).
Journals of the House of Commons.
Journals of the House of Lords.
Kenyon, John, The Popish Plot (London, 1972).
Kenyon, J.P., The Stuart Constitution / 603-1 688 Documents and Commentary (Cambridge, 1966).
Ker, Ian, John Heniy Newman (Oxford, 1988).
Kirk, John, Biographies of English Catholics in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1909).
Kirk, John, Roman-Catholick Principles in Reference to God and the King. First Published in the Year /680. To Which is Prefixed An Inquiry Respecting the Editions and the Author of that Valuable Tract (London, 1815).
The Last Speech of Mr Oliver Plunket, Titular Primate of Ireland, who was Executed at Tyburn on Friday the 1" of this Instant July, 168/. Written by his Own Hand (London, 1681).
A Letter from Lucifer, To His Roman Agents N..T. W.P. J.F. & R.L. Sir Edmond-bury Godfrey's Back-friends (London, 1682?.
Leys, M.D.R., Catholics in England 1559-1829: A Social History (London, 1961).
The L(fe and end of Thomas Awfeeld a Seminary Preest and Thomas Webley a Dyers Servant in London, beeing both Traitours who were Condemned as Felons for bringing seditious books into this Realme and Dispersing of the same, among their favourers; for which they were Executed at Tibourne the 6. Day of this Monthe ofJuly 1585 (London, 1585).
The Ljfe of H. Hills (Printer) With the Relation a/large of what passed betwixt him and the Taylors Wife in Black-friars, according to the Original. As likewise particular Remarks of his Behaviour ever since. Which proves (the times change) him to be the same H.H. still (London, 1688).
Lingard, John, History of England, from the First Invasion By the Romans to the Accession of William and Mary in /688 8 vols (London, 1819-1830).
290 Lingard, John, A New Version of the Four Gospels, With Notes Critical and Explanatory, By a Catholic (London, 1836).
London 's Flames Reviv 'd; Or, An Account of the Several Informations Exhibited to A Committee Appointed by Parliament, September the 25"' 1666. To Enquire into the Burning of London. With Several other Informations concerning other Fires in Southwark, Fetter- Lane and elsewhere. By all which it appears, that the said Fires were contrived, and carried on by the Papists. Now humbly offered to the Consideration of all True Protestants (London, 1669).
Lucas, Edward, The L(fe of Frederick Lucas, M.P. 2 vols (London, 1887).
Lunn, David, The English Benedictines 1540-1 688: From Reformation to Revolution (London, 1980).
Luttrell, Narcissus, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs From September 1678 to April /7146 vols (Oxford, 1857).
Macaulay, Ambrose, Dr Russell of Maynooth (London, 1983).
MacDermot, Brian, The Catholic Question in Ireland and England, 1798-1822: The Papers of Denys Scully (Dublin, 1988).
MacDonagh, Oliver, The Hereditary Bondsman: Daniel O'Connell 1775-1829 (London, 1988).
Mach in, G. 1.T., The Catholic Question in English Politics /820 to 1830 (Oxford, 1964).
Macbin, G.LT., Politics and the Churches in Great Britain 1832 to 1868 (Oxford, 1977).
Marvell, Andrew, An Account of the Growth of Popery and Arbitrary Government in England. More Particularly from the Long Prorogation, of November, /675, Ending the 1.5". of Februamy, 1676, till the Last Meeting of Parliament, the 16". ofJuly, 1677 (London, 1677).
McCann, Dom Justin and Connolly, Dom Hugh (eds.), Memorials of Father Augustine Baker and Other Documents Relating to the English Benedictines (London, 1933).
McDonnell, Thomas Michael, The Case of the Rev. TM. McDonnell, Late of St Peter's Mission, Birmingham, Stated By Himself in a Series of Letters (London, 1842-1844).
McDonnell, Thomas Michael, A Correct and Impartial Report of the Discussion which took place at Mount Zion Chapel, Birmingham, Between the Rev. TM McDonnell, and the Rev. John Burnet, on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 7" and 8" of August, 1827 (Birmingham, 1827).
McDonnell, Thomas Michael, Substance of Speeches Delivered at the Open Meeting of the Committee of the British Catholic Association, Held in the Committee Rooms, Thorney Street, London, January the 22", /828, James Wheble, Esq. in the Chair (Birmingham, 3 edition, 1828).
McKenzie, D.F., Stationers' Company Apprentices 1641-1700 (Oxford, 1974).
Middleton, Conyers, A Letter from Rome, Shewing an exact Conformity between Popery and Paganism: Or, The Religion of the Present Romans, derived from that of their Heathen Ancestors (London, 51h edition, 1742).
Milburn, David, A History of Ushaw College: A Study of the Origin, Foundation and Development of an English Catholic Seminary (Durham, 1964).
291 Miller, John, Popery and Politics in England 1660-1688 (Cambridge, 1973).
Mimer, John, The Clergyman 's Answer to the Layman's Letter, on the Appointment of Bishops (London, 1790).
Mimer, John, The Divine Right of Episcopacy Addressed to the Catholic Laity of England, in Answer to the Layman 's Second Letter to the Catholic Clergy of England; With Remarks on the Oaths ofSupremacy andAllegiance (London, 1791).
Mimer, John, Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: Being a Review of the Controversy Between the Layman and the Clergyman Concerning the Appointment of Bishops, and of Other Matters Contained in the Publications of Sir John Throckmorton, Bart. (London, 1793).
Mi lner, John, The History Civil and Ecclesiastical, and Survey of the Antiquities of Winchester 2 vols (Winchester, 1798-1801).
Mimer, John, A Serious Expostulation with the Rev. Joseph Berington, Upon His Theological Errors concerning Miracles and Other Subjects (London, 1797).
Miraculous Events Established By Authentic Letters From Italy (London, 1796).
More Work For The Popish Implements, Nat. Thompson and the Observator: Shewing How contradictory they are to themselves from what they were when the one published, and the other allowed this following Narrative of Sir Edmondbury Godfrey's Murder; which for the Satisfaction of all People we have here Verbatim Reprinted (London, 1682).
The Most Remarkable Trials of Nathaniel Thompson, William Paine, John Farwell, At the Kings-Bench Bar in Guild-Hall, on the 2Olh of this Instant June, 1682 (London, 1682).
Mr Tonges Vindication, In Answer to the Malicious and Lying Aspersions thrown upon him by Thomson and the Observator: Veritas non quaerit Angulos (London, 1682).
A Narrative of the Proceedings at the Sessions-house In the Old-Bailey, April 21, 1680. The Nu,nber ofpersons Condemnedfor High-Treason and other Crimes (London, 1680).
Nelson, Carolyn and Seccombe, Matthew (eds.), British Newspapers and Periodicals 164 1- /700: A Short-Title Catalogue of Serials Printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, and British America (New York, 1987).
Newman, John Henry, Apologia Pro Vita Sua (Harmondsworth, 1994).
Newman, John Henry, The Second Spring: A Sermon Preached in the Synod of Oscott, On Tuesday, July 13th, 1852 (London, 1852).
Newton, R.G., A Bagshawe Genealogy: The Descendants of Sfr William Chambers and Lady Helen Bagshawe (Sheffield, 1994).
Nowlan, Kevin B., The Politics of Repeal: A Study in the Relations between Great Britain and Ireland, /841-50 (London, 1965).
O'Connell, Daniel, Observations on Corn Laws, on Political Priority and Ingratitude, and on Clerical and Personal Slander, In the Shape of a Meek and Modest Reply to the Second Letter of the Earl of Shrewsbury, Waterford, and Wexford, To Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, Esq. (Dublin, 1842).
O'Connell, Maurice R. (ed.), The Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell 8 vols (Dublin, 1978- 1980).
292 O'Ferrall, Fergus, Catholic Emancipation: Daniel O'Connell and the Birth of Irish Democracy 1820-30 (Dublin, 1985).
Paine, William, A Second Letter To Mr Miles Prance, In Reply to the Ghost of Sir Edmond- bury Godfrey (London, 1682).
Peerbooms, Gerard Maria, Nathaniel Thompson: Tory Printer, Ballad Monger and Propagandist (Nijmegen, 1983).
Petti, Anthony G. (ed.), The Letters and Despatches of Richard Verstegan (c. 1550-1 640) (London, 1959).
Pilling, William, A Dialogue Between a Protesting Catholic Dissenter, and a Catholic; on the Nature, Tendency and Import, of the Oath Lately Offered to the Catholics of England (London, 1790).
Plomer, Henry R., A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers Who Were at Work in England, Scotland and Ireland From 1668 to 1725 (Oxford, 1922).
Plowden, Charles, Considerations on the Modern Opinion of the Fallibility of the Holy See in the Decision of Dog,natical Questions. With an Appendix on the Appointment of Bishops (London, 1790).
Plowden, Charles, Remarks on the Writings of the Rev. Joseph Beringlon, Addressed to the Catholic Clergy of England (London, 1792).
Pollen, John Hungerford (ed.), Unpublished Documents Relating to the English Martyrs (London, 1908).
Proceedings of the Catholic Association in Dublin, From May 13, 1823 to February 11, 1825 (London, 1825).
The Procession: Or, the Burning of the Pope in Effigie, in Smithfield-Rounds, On the 1 71/I of November 1681. Being Queen Elizabeths Birth-day. Describing The Several Pageants, and rare Devices of the Popes, Cardinals, Jesuits, Friers, and many others. As likewise a Pageant of several Effigies in a Pillory drawn by Horses upon a Sledge. Several painted Pieces, and Fire-works, &c. Far exceeding whatever has been exposed in this nature. With the signflcation of the several Hieroglyphicks. Humbly dedicated to his Holiness (London, 1681).
Pugh, Robert, Blacklo 's Cabal Discovered in severall of their Letters Clearly expressing Designs Inhumane against Regulars, Unjust against the Laity, Scismatical against the Pope, Cruel against Orthodox Clergy men And owning the Nullity of the Chapter, their opposition of Episcopall Authority (London, 1680).
Purcell, Edmund Sheridan, Lffe and Letters of Ambrose Phihipps de Lisle 2 vols (London, 1900).
Reflections Upon the Murder of S. Edmund-Bury Godfrey: The Design of Thompson, Farwell, and Paine, to sham off that Murder from the Papists: The late Endeavours to prove Stafford a Martyr, and no Traitor: And The particular kindnesses of the Observator and Heraclitus to the whole Design. In a Dialogue. With a Dedication from Mrs Cellier (London, 1682).
Report of the Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Birmingham Political Union, Held at Mr Beardsworth 'S Repository, on Monday, July 26, 1830 (Birmingham, 1830).
Riethmuller, Christopher James, Frederick Lucas: A Biography (London, 1862).
293 Roe, W.G., Lamennais and England: The Reception of Lamennais 's Religious Ideas in England in the Nineteenth Century (Oxford, 1966).
Rostenberg, Leona, The Minority Press and the English Crown: A Study in Repression 1558- 1625 (Nieuwkoop, 1971).
Rowe, D.J. (ed.), London Radicalism, 1830-1843: A Selection from the Papers of Francis Place (London, 1970).
Schiefen, Richard J., Nicholas Wiseman and the Transformation of English Catholicism (Shepherdstown, West Virginia, 1984).
A Second Beacon Fired by Scintilla (London, 1652).
The Sentence of Nathaniel Thompson, William Pain and John Farewel, Who Received Judgment at the Kings-Bench, Westminster; On the Third of this Instant July: As Having been Cast at Guild-Hall, for Writing, Printing, and Publishing The Letters & Libels, Purporting, That Sir Edmundbury-Godfrey Murthered Himself (London, 1682).
Shell, Alison, Catholicism, Controversy and the English Literary Imagination, 1558-1660 (Cambridge, 1999).
Siebert, Frederick Seaton, Freedom of the Press in England 1476-1776: The Rise and Decline of Government Control (Urbana, 1965).
Sir Edmondbury Godfrey's Apparition to Nat. Thompson (London, 1682).
Sir Edmundbury Godfrys Ghost: Or, An Answer to Nat. Thompsons Scandalous Letter from Cambridge, to Mr. Miles Prance, in Relation to the Murder of Sir Edmundbuiy Godfrey (London, 1682).
Snow, T.B., Obit Book of the English Benedictines From 1600 to 1912 (Edinburgh, 1913).
Southern, A.C., Eli:abethan Recusant Prose 1559-1582: A Historical and Critical Account of the Books of the Catholic Refugees Printed and Published Abroad and at Secret Presses in England Together With an Annotated Bibliography of the Same (London, 1950).
Spencer, George, Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Rev. Edward Peach, On the 12" of September, 1839, By the Hon. and Rev. George Spencer, Of St Mary's College, Oscott. To Which is Prefixed a Short Memofr of His L(fe (Birmingham, 1839).
Spencer, George, Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Rev. Francis Martyn, Catholic Pastor of Walsall, July 25, 1838, in the Catholic Chapel at Walsall, By the Hon. and Rev. George Spencer, Catholic Pastor of Westbromwich, Staffordshire. To Which is Prefixed, A Memoir of the Ljfe of the Rev. Francis Martyn, Drawn Up By One of His Earliest Friends, the Rev. Robert Richmond (Birmingham, 1838).
Steele, Robert (ed.), A Bibliography of Royal Proclamations of the Tudor and Stuart Sovereigns and of Others Published Under Authority 1485-1714 2 vols (Oxford, 1910).
Stephen, Leslie and Lee, Sidney (eds.), Dictionary of National Biography 22 vols (London, 1885-190 1).
Stewart, James D., Hammond, Muriel E. and Saenger, Erwin (eds.), British Union-Catalogue of Periodicals: A Record of the Periodicals of the World, From the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day, in British Libraries 4vols (London, 1955-1958).
Strickland, Joseph, Remarks Upon a Letter Addressed By a Layman to the Catholic Clergy of England on the Appointment of Bishops (London, 1790).
294 Sturges, John, Reflections on the Principles and Institutions of Popery, With Reference to Civil Society and Government, Especially That of This Kingdom; Occasioned By the Rev. John Mi/tier's History of Winchester (London, 1799).
The Substance of a Speech Made in the House of Commons By Wit. Prynn of Lincolns-Inn, Esquire; On Munday the Fourth of December, 1648 (London, 1649).
Sutherland, James, The Restoration Newspaper and its Development (Cambridge, 1986).
Talbot, John, A Second Letter to Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, Esq. From the Earl of Shrewsbury. On the Present Posture of Affairs (London, 1841).
Talbot, John, A Third Letter to Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, Esq. Of Grace Dieu Manor, From John, Earl of Shrewsbury, Chiefly in Reference to His Former Letter 'On the Present Posture of Affairs '(London, 1842).
Telescopium Uranicum repurgatum & Limatum. An Ephemeris or Physical, Astrological, and Meteorological observations for the year of Christ 's Incarnation MDCLXVI (London, 1666).
Thompson, Nathaniel, A Choice Collection of 120 Loyal Songs: All of them written since the Two late Plots, (viz) The Horrid Salamanca Plot in 1678 and the Fanatical Conspiracy in 1683. Intermix! with some New Love Songs With a Table to find every Song To which is added, An Anagram, and an Accrostic on the Salamanca Doctor (London, 1684).
Throckmorton, John, A Letter Addressed to the Catholic Clergy of England on the Appointment of Bishops. By a Layman .(London, 1790).
Tierney, Mark Aloysius, Dodd's Church History of England 5 vols (London, 1839-1843).
Tierney, Mark Aloysius, A Memoir of the Rev. John Lingard D.D. (London, 1854).
Trappes-Lomax, John (ed.), The Letters of Dr. John Lingard to Mrs. Thomas Lomax (1835- 51) (Catholic Record Society, 2000).
Trincalo Sainted: or the Exaltation of the Jesuits Implement, and Printer General, The Notorious Nathaniel Thomson, On this present 5th of July, 1682. The day of his being Registred among the Popish Saints, for his Meritorious Libel, Concerning the Murther of 5fr EB. G. and Magnificantly and Numerously attended, to his Enthroning in the Pillory, for that purpose Erected in the Pallace- Yard in Westminster, for the Encouragement of Towzer and Heraclitus, to proceed till they obtain the like Exaitment (London, 1682).
A True and Brief Account of the Proceedings between Mr David Fitzgerald and William Hetherington, before His Majesty in Council, on Friday the 1J of February /680/1 (London, 1681).
A true report of the death and martyrdome of M. Campion Jesuite and preiste, & M. Sherwin, & M. Bryan preistes, at Tiborne the first of December 1581. Observid and written by a Catholike preist, which was present therat Wherunto is annexid certayne verses made by sundrie persons (London, 1582).
The Tryal of Nat hanael Thompson, John Farewell, William Pain, Before the Right Honourable Sir Fran. Pemberton Kt. Lord Chief Justice of England, by Nisi Prius. At Guild-Hall, London, the Twentieth of June, 1682. For Writing, and Publishing, Scandalous Letters to Mr. Miles Prance, in Relation to the Death of Sfr Edmundbury Godfrey (London, 1682).
The T,yal of Nathaniel Thompson, William Pain, and John Farwell (London, 1682).
295 The Tryal of Nathaniel Thompson, William Pain, and John Farwell. Upon an Information exhibited by the Kings Attorny General against them, for Writing, Printing and Publishing Libels, by way qf Letters and other Prints, reflecting upon the Justice of the Nation, in the Proceedings against the Murderers of Sir Edmond-Bury Godfrey. At Guild-hal on Tuesday June the 20", 1682. Where after a full hearing they were Convicted Together with an accompt of several Affidavits read in His Majesties Court of Kings Bench and other matters at the tune of their receiving Sentence. To which is added by way of Appendix, Several other Affidavits which further confirm the Testimony of Mr. Prance, given upon the Tryal of Green, Berry and Hill about that Murder, with some Observations touching the said Thompson, Farwell and Pain (London, 1682).
Turton, Thomas, The Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist Considered in Reply to Dr Wiseinan 's Argument from Scripture (London, 1837).
A view of part of the many Traiterous, Disloyal, and Turn-about Actions of H.H. Senior, Someti,nes Printer to Cromwel, to the Common-wealth, to the Anabaptist Congregation, to Cromwel 's Army, Committee of Safelj, Rump-Parliament, &c. Printed for the Use of all those who do any ways believe the Real Conversion of H. H. (London, 1684).
Wall, Thomas, The Sign of Doctor Hay's Head: Being Some Account of the Hazards and Fortunes of Catholic Printers and Publishers in Dublin From the Later Penal Times to the Present Day (Dublin, 1958).
Walsh, Michael, The Tablet: 1840-1990. A Commemorative History (London, 1990).
Ward, Bernard, The Dawn of the Catholic Revival in England, 1781-1803 2 vols (London, 1909).
Ward, Bernard, The Eve of Catholic Emancipation 3 vols (London, 1911).
Ward, Bernard, The Sequel to Catholic Emancipation 2 vols (London, 1915).
Ward, Charles E. (ed.), The Letters ofJohn Dryden (Durham, North Carolina, 1942).
Ward, Wilfrid, The Ljfe and Times of Cardinal Wiseman 2 vols (London, 1897).
Ward, Wilfrid, William George Ward and the Catholic Revival (London, 1893).
Warner, John, The History of English Persecution of Catholics and the Presbyterian Plot 2 vols (London, 1953).
Wiener, Joel H., The War of the Unstamped: The Movement to Repeal the British Newspaper Tax, 1830-1836 (Ithaca, 1969).
Will jams, J .B., A History of English Journalism to the Foundation of the Gazette (London, 1908).
Williamson, James, A Defence of the Doctrines, Establishment, and Conduct, of the Church of England, From the Charges of the Rev. Joseph Beringlon and the Rev. John Mimer (Oxford, 1790).
Wing, Donald (ed.), Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and British A,nerica and of English Books Printed in Other Countries 1641-1700 4 vols (New York, 1994-1998).
Wiseman, Nicholas, Essays on Various Subjects 3 vols (London, 1853).
Wiseman, Nicholas, Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church 2 vols (London, 2' edition, 1842).
296 Wiseman, Nicholas, The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Eucharist, Proved From Scripture. In Eight Lectures. Delivered in the English College. Rome (London, 1836).
Wiseman, Nicholas, A Reply to the Rev. Dr. Turton 's 'Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist Considered Philalethes Cantabrigiensis, The British Critic, and The Church of England Quarterly Review (London, 1839).
Woiffe, John, The Protestant Crusade in Great Britain, 1829-1860 (Oxford, 1991).
Wood, Anthony, Athenae Oxonienses: An Exact History qf All the Writers and Bishops who have had their Education in the Most Ancient and Famous University of Oxford, From the Ffieenth Year of King Henry the Seventh, Dom. 1500, to the End of the Year 1690 2 vols (London, 1691-1692).
Published Articles and Essays
Abercrombie, Nigel, 'The First Relief Act', in (ed.) Eamon DufI', Challoner and His Church: A Catholic Bishop in Georgian Eng/and(London, 1981), pp. 174-193.
Allison, A.F., 'A Group of Political Tracts, 1621-1623, By Richard Verstegan', Recusant History, XVIII, October 1986, pp. 128-142.
Altholz, Josef L., 'Anonymity and Editorial Responsibility in Religious Journalism', Victorian Periodicals Review, XXIV, Winter 1991, pp. 180-186.
Altholz, Josef L., 'Daniel O'Connell and the Dublin Review', Catholic Historical Reviei, LXXIV, January 1988, pp. 1-12.
Altholz, Josef L., 'Early Proprietorship of the Dublin Review', Victorian Periodicals Review, XXIII, Summer 1990, pp. 54-56.
[Anonymousj, 'The Doctrine of the Eucharist', British Critic, XXII, July 1837, pp. 130-163.
Arnold, Thomas, 'The Oxford Malignants and Dr Hampden', Edinburgh Review, LXIII, April 1836, pp. 225-239.
Birrell, T.A., 'English Catholics Without A Bishop 1655-1672', Recusant History, IV, 1957- 1958, pp. 142-178.
Briggs, Asa, 'The Background of the Parliamentary Reform Movement in Three English Cities (1830-2)', Cambridge Historical Journal, X, 1952, pp. 293-317.
Briggs, Asa, 'Thomas Attwood and the Economic Background of the Birming h am Political Union', Cambridge Historical Journal, IX, 1948, pp. 190-2 16.
Burton, Edwin H., 'A Pioneer of Catholic Journalism: William Eusebius Andrews (1773- 1837)', Ushaw Magazine, XI, December 1901, pp.201-211.
Carter, Brian, 'Catholic Charitable Endeavour in London, 1810-1840. Part 1', Recusant History, XXV, May 2001, pp.487-510.
Carter, Brian, 'Controversy and Conciliation in the English Catholic Enlightenment, 1790- 1840', Enlightenment and Dissent, VII, 1988, pp. 3-24.
Casartelli, L.C., 'The First Sixty Years', Dublin Review, CXCVIII, April 1936, pp. 192-220.
297 Champ, Judith F., 'The Franciscan Mission in Birmingham 1657-1824', Recusant History, XXI, May 1992, pp. 40-50.
Champ, Judith F., 'Priesthood and Politics in the Nineteenth Century: The Turbulent Career of Thomas McDonnell', Recusani History, XVIII, May 1987, PP. 289-303.
Clancy, Thomas H., 'The Beacon Controversy, 1652-1657', Recusant History, IX, April 1967, pp. 63-74.
Clancy, Thomas H., 'The Jesuits and the Independents: 1647', Archivum Hisioricuin Societalis lesu, XL, January-June 1971, pp. 67-89.
Crist, Timothy, 'Government Control of the Press After the Expiration of the Printing Act in 1679', Publishing History: The Social, Economic and Literary History of Book, Newspaper and Magazine Publishing, V, 1979, pp. 49-77.
De Vere White, Terence, 'English Opinion', in (ed.) Michael Tierney, Daniel O'Connell: Nine Centenary Essays (Dublin, 1949), pp. 206-234.
Duffy, Eamon, 'Doctor Douglass and Mister Berington - An Eighteenth-Century Retraction', The Downside Review, LXXXVIII, July 1970, pp. 246-269.
OutY'j, Eamon, 'Ecclesiastca1 Democracy Detected: 1 (1779-1787)', Recusant History, X, january 1970, pp. 193-209.
Duffy, Eamon, 'Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: 11(1787-1796)', Recusanl History, X, October 1970, pp. 309-331.
DuffS', Eamon, 'Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected: III (1796-1803)', Recusant History, Xiii. 1975-1976, pp. 123-148.
Fletcher, John R., 'Early Catholic Periodicals in England', Dublin Review, CXCVIII, AprIl 1936, pp. 284-3 10.
Gilley, Sheridan, 'Frederick Lucas, The Tablet and Ireland - A Victorian Forerunner of Liberation Theology', in (ed.) Stuart Mews, Modern Religious Rebels (London, 1993), pp. 56-87.
Gilley, Sheridan, 'John Lingard and the Catholic Revival', Studies in Church History, XIV, 1977, pp. 3 13-327.
Gilley, Sheridan, 'The Roman Catholic Church in England, 1780-1940', In (eds.) Sheridan Gilley and W.J. Sheils, A History of Religion in Britain: Practice and Belief from Pre- Roman Times to the Present (Oxford, 1994), pp. 346-3 62.
Gillow, Joseph, 'Early Catholic Periodicals', Tablet, LVII, 29 January 1881, pp. 181-182; 5 February 1881, p. 220; 12 February 1881, pp. 259-260; 19 February 1881, p. 301; 26 February 1881, pp. 341-342.
Gwynn, Denis, 'Young Ireland', in (ed.) Michael Tierney, Daniel O'Connell: Nine Centenary Essays (Dublin, 1949), pp. 17 1-205.
Houghton, Esther Rhoades, 'The British Critic and the Oxford Movement', Studies in Bibliography, XVI, 1963, pp. 119-137.
Houghton, Esther Rhoades and Altholz, Josef L., 'The British Critic, 1824-I 843'. Victorian Periodicals Review, XXIV, 1991, pp. 111-118.
298 Husenbeth, Frederick Charles, 'Catholic Periodicals', Notes and Queries, Series, XI, 5 January 1867, pp. 2-4; 12 January 1867, Pp. 29-31.
Husenbeth, Frederick Charles, 'Rev. John Kirk D.D.', Midland Catholic History, 1991, pp. 36-43.
Husenbeth, Frederick Charles, 'Rt. Revd. Dr. Walsh', Midland Catholic History, 1996, pp. 31- 38.
Kenealy, E.V.H., 'Life of Henry Grattan', Dublin Review, XV, August 1843, pp. 200-252.
Lingard, John, 'The Ancient Church of England, and the Liturgy of the Anglican Church', Dublin Review, XI, August 1841, pp. f67-196.
Lingard, John, 'Did the Anglican Church Reform Herself'?', Dublin Review, VIII, May 1840, pp. 334-373.
Lingard, John, 'Dodd's Church History of England', Dublin Review, VI, May 1839, pp. 395- 415.
McLaughlin, P.J., 'Dr Russell and the Dublin Review', Studies, June 1952, pp. 175-188.
Messenger, E.C., 'Wiseman, the Donatists, and Newman: A Dublin Centenary', Dublin Review, CCV, July 1939, pp. 110-119.
Mitchell, C.J., 'Robert Manning and Thomas Howlatt: English Catholic Printing in the Early Eighteenth Century', Recusant History, XVII, May 1984, pp. 38-47.
Mitchell, C.J., 'Thomas Meighan: Notes on the Father of Catholic Bookselling in England', Publishing History: The Social, Economic and Literary History of Book, Newspaper and Maga:ine Publishing, X, 1981, pp. 51-58.
Murphy, Martin, 'A Jacobite Antiquary in Grub Street: Captain John Stevens (c.1662-1726)', Recusant History, XXIV, October 1999, pp. 437-454.
Murray, Patrick, 'Ireland and its Rulers', Dublin Review, XVII, September 1844, pp. 1-34.
Nicholson, W.J., 'Nicholas Alain Gilbert, French emigré priest, 1762-182 1', Northern Catholic History, XII, 1980, pp. 19-22 and p. 32.
Nixon, Howard M., 'The Memorandum Book of James Coghlan: The Stock of an 18thCentury Printer and Binder', Journal of the Printing Historical Society, VI, 1970, pp. 33-52.
Nockles, Peter B., "The Difficulties of Protestantism": Bishop Mimer, John Fletcher and Catholic Apologetic Against the Church of England in the Era from the First Relief Act to Emancipation, 1778-1830', Recusant History, XXIV, October 1998, pp. 193-236.
O'Connell, John, 'The Grievances of Ireland', Dublin Review, XV, December 1843, pp. 317- 363.
O'Connell, John, 'Why is Ireland Exempted From the Income Tax?', Dublin Review, XIII, August 1842, pp. 155-206.
O'Connell, Maurice R., 'Young Ireland and the Catholic Clergy in 1844: Contemporary Deceit and Historical Falsehood', Catholic Historical Review, LXXIV, April 1988, pp. 199-225.
O'Sullivan, Patrick, 'A Literary Difficulty in Explaining .Ireland: Tom Moore and Captain Rock, 1824', in (eds.) Roger Swift and Sheridan Gilley, The Irish in Britain 1815-1939 (London, 1989), pp. 239-274.
299 Petti, A.G., 'Stephen Vallenger (1541-1591)', Recusant History, VI, 1961-1962, pp. 248-264.
Quin, Michael Joseph, 'The Wants of Ireland', Dublin Review, X, February 1841, pp. 218- 248.
Richardson, Paul, 'A Monthly Magazine for the Educated', Month, CCLVII, August 1996, pp. 297-301.
Rostenberg, Leona, 'The Catholic Reaction: Nathaniel Thompson, "Protector of the Faith", in Literary, Political, Scient(fIc, Religious & Legal Publishing, Printing & Bookselling in England, 1551-1700: Twelve Studies 2 vols (New York, 1965), 11, pp. 315-343.
Rowlands, Marie, 'The Staffordshire Clergy, 1688-1803', Recusant History, IX, April 1968, pp. 219-241.
Russell, Charles William, 'Versions of Scripture', Dublin Review, 1, July 1836, pp. 367-399.
Russell, Matthew, 'Dr Russell and the Dublin Review', Irish Monthly, XXIII, 1895, pp. 51-56.
Russell, Matthew, 'Dr Russell's Literary Work', Irish Monthly, XXII, 1894, pp. 632-642.
Shell, Alison, 'Catholic texts and anti-Catholic prejudice in the 17th_century book trade', in (eds.) Robin Myers and Michael Harris, Censorship and the control ofprint in England and France 1600-19/0 (Winchester, 1992), pp. 33-57.
Thurston, Herbert, 'An Old-Established Periodical', Month, XLIV, February 1882, pp. 153- 165.
Walker, J., 'The Censorship of the Press During the Reign of Charles II', History, XXXV, October 1950, pp. 2 19-238.
Williams, J.A., 'English Catholicism Under Charles II: The Legal Position', Recusant History, VII, October 1963, pp. 123-143.
Williams, J.B., 'Nathaniel Thompson and the "Popish Plot", Month, CXXXVIII, July 1921, pp. 3 1-37.
Williams, Sheila, 'The Pope-Burning Processions of 1679, 1680 and 1681', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXI, 1958, pp. 104-118.
Wiseman, Nicholas, 'Catholic Versions of Scripture', Dublin Review, II, April 1 837, pp. 475- 492.
Wiseman, Nicholas, 'Ecclesiastical Organisation', Dublin Review, XIII, August 1842, pp. 240- 251.
Wiseman, Nicholas, 'The Oxford Controversy', Dublin Review, I, May 1836, pp. 250-265.
Wiseman, Nicholas, 'Prayer and Prayer Books', Dublin Review, XIII, November 1842, pp. 448-485.
Wiseman, Nicholas, 'The Religious Movement', Dublin Review, XIX, December 1845, pp. 522-545.
Wiseman, Nicholas, 'Tracts for the Times: Anglican Claim of Apostolical Succession', Dublin Review, IV, April 1838, pp. 307-335.
Wiseman, Nicholas, 'Tracts for the Times: Anglican Claim of Apostolical Succession', Dublin Review, VII, August 1839, pp. 139-180.
300